Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Fredrik Lundh 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.
It also pretty solidly capture what a shell script does. > I think that at one time, scripting languages was something that lived > within other programs, like Office, and couldn't be used by themselves > without running it inside that program, and as thus was a way to add > minor functions and things to that program. That's certainly one kind of scripting language. But I don't think it's ever been the only kind - shells have always been stand-alone applications. What they have in common with your definition is that both types of languages are used to capture user actions for later repetition. And that's what makes a scripting language: it's a language in which one writes "scripts" that describe actions - normally taken by a user - so that a series of them can be performed automatically. For my take on the ontology of scripting languages, see <URL: http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/scripting/what.html >. <mike -- Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list