Re: GDB and scripting languages - which

[Jim Blandy <jimb at codesourcery dot com>]

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