RE: GDB and scripting languages - which

["Kaz Kylheku" <kaz@zeugmasystems.com>]

Jim Blandy wrote:
> I would prefer that GDB use a single extension language, and that that
> language be Python. 

I think it would be best to have a libgdb.so shared library with a
well-defined API. Then people can write their own bindings to call it
from whatever programming environment suits them.

I think Python is a retarded pile of crap and won't use it; moreover, I
don't care to discuss the reasons why.

But I don't want to get in your way of using it if you want, because
that would be bad engineering.

> talents in Guile.  But Guile has had more than enough time to attract
> uses and users on its own merits, and compared to Python, it hasn't
> worked out.  It's time to cut our losses.)

Guile is not even particularly attractive people who are already Scheme
programmers. For serious Scheme work, there are better implementations
out there. 

> Maintaining such libraries for multiple extension languages would be
> wasted work, and python is good enough.

It would be fine if a binding library for a just a single language were
maintained, but if there was a separation between that and a clean API,
rather than too much reliance on the internals. For instance, it would
not be very nice if the API relied some internal data structures of a
particular interpreter, and used that representation for passing values
back and forth.