In <MPG.dc132702ba2447198977a@news.demon.co.uk>,
cyber_surfer@gubbish.wildcard.demon.co.uk (Cyber Surfer) wrote:
> With a mighty <19970417.7DC0A38.8702@contessa.phone.net>,
> bouncenews@contessa.phone.net uttered these wise words...
>
> > Most programming languages (including
> > ports from Unix) include facilities to talk to these applications.
> So what are people arguing over? The choice of scripting language is
> irrelevant, if the app doesn't dictate any specific language.
Unfortunately, there are people using lesser platforms that don't have
or only recently acquired these facilities, so they can't do that. :-)
And some people just like arguing about religious issues.
> I don't see why MS and Windows developers - and users - should be the
> only people to benefit from this fine idea.
They aren't. Like I said, I (and a few million others) have had the
benefit of this functionality for most of the last decade.
It appears that Unix may get such a solution in the form of
applications that support JVM as a scripting mechanism. This allows
any language that can be used to produce JVM bytecodes to be used for
scripting. There may be technical problems with this solution, but
it's a start.
If you're really interested, I started working on a TCP/IP solution
for this kind of thing a while back. It got aborted by a corporate
takeover, but I may still have the groundwork somewhere (if not, the
critical parts are easy to recreate).
<mike
--
Do NOT reply to the address in the From: header. Reply to mwm instead
of bouncenews at the same machine. You have been warned. Sending
unsoliticed email I consider commercial gives me permission to
subscribe you to a mail list of my choice.
|