new forum -- homework help/chit chat/easy communication

[Fredrik Lundh]

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>