From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6810 invoked by alias); 17 Jan 2007 19:09:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 6781 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Jan 2007 19:09:03 -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 19:08:50 +0000 Received: (qmail 2868 invoked from network); 17 Jan 2007 19:08:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (jimb@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 17 Jan 2007 19:08:48 -0000 To: "Kaz Kylheku" Cc: Subject: Re: GDB and scripting languages - which References: <66910A579C9312469A7DF9ADB54A8B7D58107B@exchange.ZeugmaSystems.local> From: Jim Blandy Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 19:09:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <66910A579C9312469A7DF9ADB54A8B7D58107B@exchange.ZeugmaSystems.local> (Kaz Kylheku's message of "Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:29:24 -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/msg00274.txt.bz2 "Kaz Kylheku" writes: > 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. This would be the right design, if we were writing from scratch. But it's a very large effort. Also, one of the consequences of C being a low-level language is that interfaces are more sensitive to changes to the library's internals. It's much easier to design a (say) Python interface that allows us to continue to improve GDB's architecture internally without breaking clients. > Guile is not even particularly attractive people who are already Scheme > programmers. For serious Scheme work, there are better implementations > out there. Yep.