Arich Chanachai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Mike Meyer wrote:
Whatever the intentions may be, the *act* is one of dictation. Since the point of the underlying OS is to increase the interconnections between applications (assuming I've found the correct web page and interpreted it correctly), the underlying architecture should be language-neutral. That allows as many applications as possible to play in the environment.
*Allowing* other languages is one thing, but that shouldn't preclude having a 'default' language. On other OS's, the default language is some form of shell scripting (i.e. Unix shell scripts, or Windows batch files). It would be good to have a real language to fill that role.
You've missed the point. Allowing a wide array of problem solving choices is a goal, not a means. Instead of concentrating on adding langauges, you should be provding an infrastructure that makes adding langauges simple. The Plan 9 example does this best, as any language that can do file I/O is supported.
Still, the builtin shell is going to need *some* form of scripting support. And if that looks like IPython's shell mode, so much the better.
Anyway, the reason to prefer Python to LISP for something like this, is that Python reads much more naturally for most people, whereas LISP requires that you write things 'out of order'.
Compare out-of-the-box Python: a = 1 + 2 + 3 + 4
And out-of-the-box Lisp: (setq a (+ 1 2 3 4))
Which language has the lower barrier for entry? That should be a fairly important consideration for a language that is going to sit at the heart of an OS.
Cheers, Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Brisbane, Australia
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://boredomandlaziness.skystorm.net
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
