From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22003 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2007 16:01:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 21991 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Feb 2007 16:01:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 16:01:39 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A171048CF84; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:01:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 00942-01-2; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:01:37 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E38B48CC61; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 11:01:37 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <45D33263.2080403@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 17:37:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: Jim Blandy , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB and scripting languages - which References: <20070108222005.GA27451@nevyn.them.org> <20070210203307.GA27502@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-02/txt/msg00129.txt.bz2 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > 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. It might *sound* like an "awful overhead", but that's really pure FUD unless you document exactly what your concern here is. Python is used successfully in this context in many tools. It is not as though GDB is a tiny program you are trying to squeeze into 8K bytes! > As for familiarity with it, the GDB scripting language we have now is > even less widespread than Lua. That's not an argument, you can't say "what we have now is bad, so we don't need any better" :-)