Re: GDB and scripting languages - which

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Feb 14, 2007 at 05:41:06PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Even if the exception issue is worked out, though, I'm still concerned
> > that Lua doesn't have as much momentum as Python.  Python's wealth of
> > other libraries available (gui; graphing; networking) brings a lot of
> > potential with it.  And there are a lot of programmers out there who
> > could just start scripting GDB the day Python support is committed.
> 
> Python is a full-fledged programming language, not a language created
> for extending other programs.  Do you really think we need networking,
> graphics, and GUI in GDB scripts?  That sounds like an awful overhead.

None of that's in the core of Python, you'll notice.  It's all in
modules.  Some of those for networking are standard modules, but none
of it would be linked in to GDB.  But in any case those aren't the
ones I had in mind: I was thinking of things like XML, text
processing, and high-performance numerics.

And Python is widely used as an extension language nowadays - which
may not be true when the paper you reference was written, eleven years
ago.

Based on this discussion, I think we probably won't convince you that
Python is the best choice.  Do you think that Python would be a bad
choice with serious negative consequences?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery