RE: Scriptometer: measuring the ease of SOP (Script Oriented Programming) of programming languages

["Anton van Straaten" <address@hidden>]

> I don't think one characteristic of Script-Oriented Programming is the
> ability to write a small scripting dynamically-typed OO language ;p
>
> I'd rather have a language-agnostic description of SOP.

I should have added that if a language is inherently good as a scripting
language, then my points (2) and (2a) are not too important.  I'm saying
that JVM features redeem Java as a scripting-friendly overall system.  I'm
not saying that other languages have to achieve or support scriptability in
the same way - just that it may be too narrow to relegate Java to the bottom
of the pile, simply because its architecture is best exploited in a
different way from that of other systems.

> and maybe i want to keep OCaml/Haskell high and Java low
> :)

Yes, I've noticed that.  ;oP  You could try adding "supports monads" as a
requirement for a scripting language...

But in similar vein, I think Java belongs higher than C at least, based on
empirical evidence, and that a good SOP test ought to reflect that.  We'll
just have to see how OCaml & Haskell come out after the test has been
adjusted!

Perhaps the best way to satisfy my objection is to simply add "Java+(JVM
scripting language)" as a language.  That would probably rank up much closer
to Python, thus fulfilling your worst nightmares. :)  If I get around to it,
I'll submit the code snippets.

My greater point here isn't intended to be about Java advocacy - since I
mainly use the language because I'm paid to - but rather about being
open-minded about the different ways that some of these goals can be
achieved.

Anton