On Mon, Jun 26, 2006 at 10:22:17AM -0700, Stephen Hahn wrote: > I would probably argue that #vim is a bit self-selecting, if one is > looking for sophisicated users. If you instead search the published > scripts on vim.sf.net to assess usage, it's pretty clear that native > scripts are dominant, then there are a number using Perl or Python, > and then an even smaller group using Ruby or Tcl.
I imagine that most script writers are trying to be as inclusive as possible. There's a chicken and egg problem here -- if a sufficiently large percentage of vim packages don't have support for the alternate languages, then a very small percentage of people will publish scripts for them. > My objection is a little bit about size, but mostly that the Vim > maintainer(s) will have to redeliver (or evaluate the need to > redeliver) when any of the included interpreters are updated. More > interpreters means more work for the maintainer(s); all I suggest is > that the maintainer calculate that cost... It might also be worth checking to see whether factoring out the languages into shared objects would be a savings. Looking at the python code, at least, seems like the amount of work involved would be minimal. I've no idea whether Bram would take the change back, though, but that would probably be a quick question to ask. Danek
