[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ANN: "Interacting with CORBA" article
On 23 Dec 1999 15:27:27 GMT, gransart@lifl.fr (Christophe.Gransart) wrote:
> In article <m3902l8lep.fsf@soma.andreas.org>, Andreas Bogk <andreas@andreas.org> writes:
> > gransart@lifl.fr (Christophe.Gransart) writes:
> >
> > I must admit that I don't get it either, what's the point in defining
> > a special scripting language? You can use any language you want for
> > scripting,
> >
> Yes, you can use any language you want.
> At the first presentation of the submissions, 4 languages were presented:
> Python, Tcl, JavaScript and CorbaScript/IDLscript.
>
> During the process, JavaScript and Tcl submissions were stopped (I don't know why).
Why have a separate scripting language standardization process?
> > so a language binding definition should have been enough.
>
> No, You cannot force everybody to use the same language. That's the reason there is
> - at least - two solutions standardized by the OMG.
You misunderstood Andreas's point. He did NOT mean
"so a single language binding for scripting should have been enough"
Instead he meant:
"so another ordinary language binding just like the others for C++,
Java, COBOL, etc should have been enough"
> For your question about "why a new language", I want to say that the main advantage
> of a new language is the simplicity of use with a seamless integration with IDL type system.
It is pointless continuing this thread as you don't understand our basic
question even though we've asked it several times. Perhaps some other reader
can enlighten us?
__Jason
Follow-Ups:
References: