>>>>> "Ille" == Ille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Ille> Of course a plugin architecture would be a nice and great thing. I Ille> think the main API should be in C so that raw loaders do not Ille> suffer from scripting languages weaknesses (mainly speed). Then it Ille> will be easy to extend the plugins mechanism to any scripting Ille> language (should it be python, perl, tcl, even scheme).
I would certainly also agree that the main API should be in C, and any scripting language should, in a manner befitting the scripting language, wrap this C API. In truth, doing it any other way would probably be rather more complex. I think it would be a bad strategy to promote more than a single scripting language. We see in other projects that people tend to recreate the same functionality in different languages, e.g. some tool might be written in TCL, but then a Python fan will make a Python version, a Perl fan will make a Perl version etc., and I have the impression that a consequence of this is generally a lower quality of plugins and a more fractured community of plugin writers. Martin _______________________________________________ Rawstudio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://rawstudio.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/rawstudio-dev
