Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote: > <snip> > > "Unlike mainstream component programming, scripts usually > > do not introduce new components but simply "wire" existing > > ones. Scripts can be seen as introducing behavior but no > > new state. /.../ Of course, there is nothing to stop a > > "scripting" language from introducing persistent state -- it > > then simply turns into a normal programming language." > > > > -- Clemens Szyperski, in "Component Software": > <snip> > > That description seems to describe whatever is written more than > whatever it is written in, or in other words, it describes the > difference between a script and a program, not between a scripting > language and a programming language.
well, yes and no. it basically implies that if a language doesn't have the internal mechanisms required to implement persistent storage on its own, it's a scripting language. examples are shell languages, the Windows BAT language, javascript running in certain environments, and the myriad of application-specific "command languages" that were popular in the "old days". > Nowadays a lot of the scripting languages have turned programming > languages so I think the difference is small. I think the trend is that when people are faced with a "scripting problem" (e.g. when they need "command languages" or other kinds of basic pro- grammability), it's no longer fashionable to invent yet another language. integrating an existing runtime is a lot easier. Tcl is an early example of a something that started as a "reusable command language" and turned into a "real programming language" along the way: http://www.tcl.tk/advocacy/tclHistory.html </F>
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list