Curtis L. Olson wrote: > I would argue that if we do embed a script interpreter it should be > really small, tight, and light weight.
Amen. :) It's possible that the source for the actual interpreter is much smaller than the full package, though. JavaScript implementations are likely to be aimed at browsers, and the browser environment is a notoriously fat interface. It's a pity that there aren't any good, small, tight scripting languages left. Lots of languages *start* small and tight, but rapidly expand. Python did this -- version 1 was small and tight, version 2 is a monster. Perl is about to do it for the Nth time. I tremble in fear everytime Larry releases another apocalypse. Perl 6 is just out of control at this point. There are (duck) scheme variants like guile that are still small, though. Also, there's Lua. Lua is very small and very tight (only a few tens of kilobytes of code). It's also very odd, with strange syntax for stuff that the rest of the world has standardized on long ago. Andy -- Andrew J. Ross NextBus Information Systems Senior Software Engineer Emeryville, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.nextbus.com "Men go crazy in conflagrations. They only get better one by one." - Sting (misquoted) _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
