This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
RE: GDB and scripting languages - which
- From: "Kaz Kylheku" <kaz at zeugmasystems dot com>
- To: "Jim Blandy" <jimb at codesourcery dot com>, <gdb at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 10:29:24 -0800
- Subject: RE: GDB and scripting languages - which
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.