[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: ANN: "Interacting with CORBA" article

On 23 Dec 1999 09:25:09 GMT, gransart@lifl.fr (Christophe.Gransart) wrote:

> In article <3=FgON2rGsr4vCvcllXLMw5PyjGi@4ax.com>, Jason Trenouth <jason@harlequin.com> writes:
> 
> First, I don't want to start a languages war ...
> 
> > On 22 Dec 1999 15:19:06 GMT, gransart@lifl.fr (Christophe.Gransart) wrote:
> > 
> > > CORBA Scripting Language RFP:
> > > http://www.omg.org/techprocess/meetings/schedule/CORBA_Scripting_Language_RFP.html
> > 
> > Ah yes, perhaps you could explain why a special CORBA scripting standard is
> > necessary at all? 
> 
> The goal of this RFP was to standardize ways to use scripting language with CORBA;
> whatever the language you are using.

So perhaps you could say what they are? What's special about scripting that's
not covered by programming?

Its possible that there are some people who are familiar only with static
programming languages on the one hand and scripting languages on the other, and
so they think that scripting is obviously qualitatively different. Whereas users
of a full-spectrum programming language like Dylan things differently.

> > Scripting languages are programming languages aren't they? And
> > there's already a process for mapping programming languages to CORBA.
> 
> Two scripting languages were adopted because there were not other proposals.

I think you are missing my point. Why was there a special scripting RFP in the
first place?

> IDLscript is a language specifically designed to be used with CORBA.
> The type system of IDLscript is the OMG IDL type system.
>
> When you want to use another language (like Dylan or another else), this language has 
> already its own type system and sometimes the seamless integration with OMG IDL
> type system is not easy to do.

So IDLScript is a scripting language that has been designed from the outset to
match IDL. That's great. BUT why does it have to be part of a special CORBA
Scripting RFP? Why didn't it simply get its own language mapping? What is
distinct about scripting that merits its own subprocess for specification?

> I think that we have the same goal (scripting CORBA objects in an interactive
> manner) but with different approaches; that's all!

Not really. I'm suggesting that you don't need specialized little scripting
languages to interact with CORBA since you can do it with full-fledged languages
that you can also use to build your whole system.

__Jason
Follow-Ups: References: