[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ANN: "Interacting with CORBA" article
In article <QwtiOMx20lzraGOjAw8RqmMMDbkb@4ax.com>, Jason Trenouth wrote:
>
> One of the points of the article was that you don't need specialized little
> scripting languages to interact with CORBA since you can do it with a
> fully-fledged programming language which you can also use to build your whole
> system.
>
Obviously, our opinions differ (and seemingly, yours differs from any-
body else's opinion around here) on the definition of a `small' vs. `full-
fledged' programming language.
Your discrimination of Perl, Python, Tcl et al as `little useless toys'
is plain false, just as that statement would be wrong for even more ar-
chaic languages like awk or sh. They all are full-fledged, and full-scale
projects have been and are being written using all of these languages.
I see the difference of a scripting language in the feature to construct
and evaluate pieces of code at runtime, and that is more or less your
`interaction' criteria.
For most projects, constructing code at runtime is not necessary, and
then the borders between scripting and compiled programming languages have
ceased to exist. (Beside that, how difficult would it be to pipe C or Java
code through an external compiler into a shared library and execute it?)
We all agree on that treating scripting languages separately has been a
mistake.
Now if you could be persuaded to accept scripting languages, in the above
definition, to be of the same completeness as Dylan, we can stop kicking
around and continue in our quest to use CORBA everywhere, using the de-
veloper's language of choice.
Frank
--
+ Frank Pilhofer fp@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de +
| http://www.uni-frankfurt.de/~fp/ |
+---- Life would be a very great deal less weird without you. - DA ----+
Follow-Ups:
References: