[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ANN: "Interacting with CORBA" article
In article <L5djOJVkQtvC4FdAi6O48seMhTzf@4ax.com>,
Jason Trenouth <jason@harlequin.com> wrote:
>So, after an indecently brief bit of research, it looks as if this _was_ the
>main aim: to encourage bindings to languages with a scripting flavour.
Main aim of who? There were certainly submitters who thought the main aim was
to do exactly that, myself included. Most vocal of that goal was Brent Welch
(at that time with Sun, now Scriptics).
There were others (and I believe the original authors of the RFP were among
them), that believed selecting a single language would simplify life for
everybody, by reducing the amount of work to implement them, and the amount
of teaching to explain them.
And then, there were some that thought the entire RFP was a stupid idea.
>What isn't clear is if this is an ongoing subprocess or whether it is closed.
>eg whether other scripting language specifications, eg for TCL, would be under
>its umbrella or not.
This specific process is closed. Please understand that all of Perl, Tcl, and
JavaScript had been candidates all the time. It is just that no single
OMG member felt like putting the effort of a submission into it. For example,
when Tcl maintainance went to Scriptics, Sun got "disenvolved", and Scriptics
people had their focus on TclPro, instead of standardization work.
>Since this is a CORBA/Dylan cross-thread, I should point out that Dylan
>doesn't qualify as a scripting language in the terms of the RFP's "problem
>statement" since it does not contain "eval".
As Steve and Michi had explained: There is nothing wrong with starting a
new process, making the Dylan mapping standard, from an administrative
point of view. There might be other concerns, like existance of de-facto
standards, that make de-jure standards in that area pointless.
Regards,
Martin
References: