Patrick Donnelly <batrick@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Eric S. Raymond <esr@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > It might be a good fit for extending git; I wouldn't be very surprised if > > that worked. However, I do have concerns about the "Oh, we'll just > > lash together a binding to C" attitude common among lua programmers; I > > foresee maintainability problems and the possibility of slow death by > > low-level details as that strategy tries to scale up. > > I think this is quite a prediction? Could you give an example > scenario? Everything old is new again. I'm going by experience with Tcl back in the day. > How would another language (e.g. Python) mitigate this? The way you mitigate this sort of problem is to have a good set of high-level bindings for standard services (like socket I/O) built in your extension language and using its abstractions, so you don't get a proliferation of low-level semi-custom APIs for doing the same stuff. I have elsewhere referred to this as "the harsh lesson of Perl", which I do not love but which was the first scripting language to get this right. There is a reason Tcl and a couple of earlier designs like csh that we would now call "scripting languages" were displaced by Python and Perl; this is it. My favorite present-day example of getting this right is the Python bindings for GTK. They're lovely. A work of art. > I don't see how these languages are more appropriate based on your concerns. Your previous exchange with Jeff King indicates that you don't understand glue scripting very well. Your puzzlement here just confirms that. Trust both of us on this, it's important. And reread my previous three paragraphs. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a> -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html