Re: Perl embedding: trial balloon
John Tobey <jtobey(a)channel1.com> writes:
Per Abrahamsen <abraham(a)dina.kvl.dk> wrote:
> #3 (Single Perl+Emacs executable): Gross! Go away!
The difference between dynamic and static linking is mainly
psychological.
In this case, it is the difference between good and maintanable
design, and the kind of ugly hacks that kills software projects.
Using pipes allows you to embed an interpreters for any language into
Emacs today, and has done that for a long time. And it allows the
code for embedding these interpreters to be developed, maintained and
distributed separately from the mainstream code. Creating an
interface strong enough for loadable modules to contain alternative
interpreters would do the same.
Creating an ad-hoc solution like a single "Perl+Emacs" executable
could be justified if there were only a small number of such
interpreters with strong followers However, there are zillions of
them, and any acceptable solution should take that into account.
I thought XEmacs sought to do the same for the rest of the world,
but apparently it is only for the rest of the Lisp-speaking world.
Again, it is a not a question of Lisp vs. Perl, but a question of
maintainable design decisions vs. short-sighted ad-hoc solutions.