From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2197 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2007 20:27:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 2187 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Feb 2007 20:27:39 -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 20:27:33 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2AE548CFDD; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:25:52 -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 13468-02-8; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:25:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (nile.gnat.com [205.232.38.5]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E81C48CC55; Wed, 14 Feb 2007 15:25:52 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <45D37053.3090709@adacore.com> Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:56:00 -0000 From: Robert Dewar User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy CC: Eli Zaretskii , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB and scripting languages - which References: <20070108222005.GA27451@nevyn.them.org> <20070210203307.GA27502@nevyn.them.org> <45D33263.2080403@adacore.com> <45D34E2E.7070701@adacore.com> 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/msg00146.txt.bz2 Jim Blandy wrote: > Robert Dewar writes: >> Well my use of the term FUD here was >> considered. > > Well, whatever its precise meaning might be, "FUD" is an emotionally > charged word. Whether or not you feel it was an appropriate choice, > it wasn't helpful in keeping the conversation on track. OK, sorry, for me technical discussions never have any emotional content (I never see the point of expending emotional energy on something as unimportant as a technical argument), but I do understand that others can get involved, so again apologies. Once again, my position is as follows. The non-technical arguments for Python are very strong. It would take VERY convincing technical arguments for another language to overcome them. In fact Python is a technically strong choice as well, so the barrier to finding some better choice is pretty high. Lua does not begin to meet that challenge. I actually don't think Lua is technically superior to Python, but even if it were it would have to be oustandingly superior, and that is clearly not the case.