From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27194 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2007 19:24:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 27147 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jan 2007 19:24:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:24:23 +0000 Received: (qmail 3704 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2007 19:24:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 17 Jan 2007 19:24:21 -0000 To: "Kaz Kylheku" Cc: "Eli Zaretskii" , Subject: Re: GDB and scripting languages - which References: <66910A579C9312469A7DF9ADB54A8B7D5811C9@exchange.ZeugmaSystems.local> From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:24:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <66910A579C9312469A7DF9ADB54A8B7D5811C9@exchange.ZeugmaSystems.local> (Kaz Kylheku's message of "Mon, 15 Jan 2007 16:38:43 -0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2007-01/txt/msg00275.txt.bz2 "Kaz Kylheku" writes: >> > Guile is not even particularly attractive people who are >> already Scheme >> > programmers. For serious Scheme work, there are better >> implementations >> > out there. >> >> Aren't we talking about a language for extending GDB, as opposed to a >> language ``for serious Scheme work''? > > Extending GDB could be serious work, and if that work is done in Scheme, > then it is serious Scheme work. I think Kaz's intention was simply to agree with me that Guile is a poor choice. Scheme, even an implementation other than Guile, is a contentious choice; pushing it will probably result in nothing at all happening, which I think would be sad. This has happened in the past. I want to have something, rather than the (almost) nothing I have had for the last seventeen years. > Eli Zaretskii: >> Aren't we talking about a scripting language to allow decent scripting >> _inside_ GDB, i.e. about extension _to_ GDB, as opposed to making GDB >> an extension of other programs? What Kaz is really asking for is a C API for GDB. I'm very concerned about exporting C interfaces from GDB. I think they will age poorly, and constrain our ability to improve GDB.