On 5/23/05, Steven W. Orr <steveo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Monday, May 23rd 2005 at 14:15 -0400, quoth grumman Fan: > > =>On 5/23/05, Steven W. Orr <steveo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > =>> On Monday, May 23rd 2005 at 13:02 -0400, quoth grumman Fan: > =>> =>So "scripting" is the same thing as "programming"? > =>> => > =>> =>"I scripted a new Linux kernel today." > =>> => > =>> =>Ha. snort. > =>> > =>> If it makes you feel better, don't think in term of "scripting language". > =>> Think instead in terms of Very High Level Language. Things like perl or > =>> ruby or python or tcl qualify. They are intended to be scripting languages > =>> that are reasonable (or better) choices for use as system implementation > =>> languages. > => > =>Let me see if I understand this correctly: > => > =>You are positting that perl, ruby and tcl are "system implementation > =>languages"? > =>Is that correct? > > I am not positting, but I am positing. Congratulations, Let us know if you need more work proofreading and maybe we can get you some as a typesetter as well. (You'll distinctly be moving up.) > Correct. I can't tell if you're > being sarcastic or if you are really inquisitive. On the assumption that > you are being sarcastic (based also on your previous nasal difficulties), No, you missed it. but don't worry, I'll spell it out for you: snort = derision. > let's look at what a system implementation language requires. Is there any > system call that is not accessible from perl/ruby/tcl/python? No. Is there > any OO programming construct that is not available from these languages? One other characteristic: Suitable for use within the OS itself. Since Some OS's have been written in PCODE type language (Algol for example) being interpreted is not a dis qualifier all by itself. But most interpreted languages would not qualify. > No. The only difference is really the method of execution: Do we only > execute ECOFF or do we allow interpreted or PCODE? > Bash scripting does not > qualify as a system implementation language because there are a ton of > things that you can not do. > I'm just wondering if, at the heart of this, > there is some sort of discrimination against non-ecoff people. ;-) I dunno - you'll have to ask the guy who started the thread
