Re: [DotGNU]About scripting: SilverScript

[Barry Fitzgerald]

Gopz wrote:
> 
> If memory serves me right, Peter Minten wrote:
> > *Python: seems to meet all requirments, implementing the callling of C#
> > code would be a little tricky however
> 
> Hmm... need more confirmation on that fact ... Is it so different
> in callconv ?. (after all Jython does exist)
> 

Also, python type declaration system is somewhat loose.  But, IMHO,
that's OK.  Scripting languages are meant to be quick and somewhat
rough.  I've never really thought of strong typing to be important in
scripting languages.


> > There is also a 6th option: SilverScript (working name, I haven't been
> > able to think of a better name yet :-). I went to my drawing board
> > yesterday to draw up what a good scripting language would need, I ended
> 
> SashXB ? (Fitzix , your comments are invaluable here)
>

SashXB is basically JavaScript with Sash extensions.  I think it could
fit the bill, but invite others here to try it out for themselves to see
how much they like it.  If you don't like JavaScript, you won't like
Sash.  Having said that, SashXB crosses between a scripting language and
a RAD environment.  It's really kind of nice to see at work.

Also, consider that we don't need just one scripting language.  We can
do to endorse/create multiple languages, just like we do for C#/Java

 

> 
> >From what I could see, it needs a lot of cleaning up to be *really*
> accessible to scripting programmers ... but let's keep this going
> somwhere (fast) !
> 
> Keep it moving ....
> 

Yeah - it's a neat idea.  I think it should be a little bit simpler (I
don't feel that strong typing, particularly of functions, is necessary
for scripting.  But, if that's what you want - it would be unique.) ...

Frankly, I'd like to see mods to JavaScript(SashScript) that introduce
easily producable methods, rather than just functions.  

        -Barry