RE: Scripting choices [Was: 2.4 Module List - zenity]

[Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>]

On Sun, 2003-03-30 at 11:57, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 15:20, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 07:19, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > 
> > > this makes me think that it could be a good idea to offer an integrated
> > > scripting engine, as is done in Mac OS, for instance. I don't know
> > > exactly how this could be accomplished, but I guess making obvious to
> > > every GNOME user that they can write nice little scripts could be a good
> > > idea.
> > 
> > This is something I've privately advocated for a while.  The problem is
> > really *which* language to use.
> >
> I don't think a scripting engine should be tied to one language. We
> should just provide a framework for users to be able to script things
> from the UI, in whatever language they want to.
> 
> cheers

If people are building a generic scripting framework, it is highly
desirable over single-language bindings because it means that we (GNOME)
can allow people to script in [insert scripting language of the moment
here]. Python and .NET are 2 popular suitable languages.

Support for only a single language means that we'd have to rewrite
bindings from scratch whenever people wanted a new language, which they
will.

On the other hand, it looks as if the code in gnome-office is fairly
sparse at present. (200 lines?)

-- 
Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>

"If we eventually have the ubercool component system - based on Bonobo, or
something else - then great, we can then proxy it over IIOP, D-BUS, SOAP,
and morse code." -- hp