Re: Suggestion for Future Implementation
On Fri, 7 Jul 2000 00:20:11 -0400, Ben Fosberg
<BenFosberg at WORLDNET.ATT.NET> wrote:
>I'm curious as to what you could do with a Euphoria DLL that you
>can't do with a Euphoria EXE. Maybe a dumb question, but it's been
>a long day, and I can't seem to get my head around the notion of
>writing a program in Euphoria that "could support Euphoria as a
>scripting/macro language."
Some examples of scripting-language use in applications, right
off the top of my head:
GNU Emacs is an editor that allows the user to write complex
procedures for manipulating text in the buffers, using a language
that is very similar (if not outright a subset) to LISP.
Microsoft Word is a word processor that allows the user to write
complex procedures for manipulating text in the document and
associated files (such as merge data), using a language that is a
large subset of Visual BASIC. Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access,
and Microsoft Powerpoint have similar capabilities, using
virtually identical subsets of Visual BASIC.
Hamster is a news server that allows the user to write procedures
for automating connections and manipulating the newsbase using a
language that is similar to BASIC.
ISPF and XEDIT are mainframe editors (and I believe that there
are PC implementations as well) that allows the user to write
procedures for manipulating the text in the buffers, using REXX.
A number of years ago, there was a terminal emulator (for DOS)
called REXXTERM, which allowed automating of connection activity
through the writing of procedures using a large subset of REXX as
the language.
In the case of the Microsoft applications and ISPF, the language
interpretation is not done by the program itself, but is handed
off to shared routines (equivalent to DLLs, in the case of the
mainframe; actual DLLs in the case of the MS apps).
In other words, the scripting/macro language is a capability that
allows the user to do, within broad limits, functionality not
necessarily envisioned by the developer of the application, or
which the developer felt would not be broadly needed (and
therefore not worth taking the time to code manually) - but which
there would be no logical reason _not_ to allow the user to add,
given the capability. A scripting language is a "cheap" way of
doing that, since all the developer need do is define how the
user and program interface to the scripting language. Euphoria,
or a large subset, would make a good scripting language,
regardless of what language the actual application was written in
(for example, write a text editor in C++/Builder, with Euphoria
as the scripting language).
--
Jeff Zeitlin
jzeitlin at cyburban.com
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
