From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Carsten Mattner Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: gdb scripting language (was OSX crash) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:12:33 +0100 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1324296777 17861 80.91.229.12 (19 Dec 2011 12:12:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 12:12:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Emacs developers To: "Stephen J. Turnbull" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Dec 19 13:12:53 2011 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Rcc5J-0007jJ-5r for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:12:49 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38408 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rcc5I-0000r6-8I for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:12:48 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56601) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rcc5A-0000pQ-K4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:12:46 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rcc54-0004FJ-GI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:12:40 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-iy0-f169.google.com ([209.85.210.169]:61469) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rcc54-0004F7-Bh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 07:12:34 -0500 Original-Received: by iacb35 with SMTP id b35so7880439iac.0 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:12:33 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=cboTfnX45MZg/DsBhlOeGLy7fe8sx7WqR8g75BgYcGo=; b=fUxyuKpqezDnWjfrx9wD6MnNYMWhhiO7lLc2/gEOa2iDE/SzieLpfPC+B/5A1DvY5d coYuoJYSwrUCFKnCBvSzoxLnHhD1/zV71KWYOpWqen0EzTBYKR/kb5E8SZiSSwp4CL/o vb8bZvB7vRP2MW5o485Bg1GgtFfTjc3VxWVL4= Original-Received: by 10.50.196.163 with SMTP id in3mr27188742igc.53.1324296753575; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:12:33 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.50.6.165 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Dec 2011 04:12:33 -0800 (PST) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 2) X-Received-From: 209.85.210.169 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:146821 Archived-At: On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > Carsten Mattner writes: > =A0> On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote: > =A0> > Jan Dj=E4rv writes: > =A0> > > =A0> > =A0> I think [llbd] yses Python as a scripting language (yech ...)= . > =A0> > > =A0> > Tastes differ, but I think you are nuts if you prefer gdb command > =A0> > language scripting to Python! > =A0> > =A0> Yes, but from a simplicity and size perspective Lua (even though I > =A0> don't like it and wouldn't recommend it) would be better choice. > =A0> >From a use-case point of view I'm sure that Guile or another LISP > =A0> variant would be a more ideal fit. > > Eh? =A0You really think people who program only in C/C++/Java/FORTRAN > would really prefer a Lispy scripting language? =A0People who use Emacs > don't really count, as they (mostly) shouldn't need to care, they > should just use gdb (or gud) mode. Yes, because Lisps are way easier to learn and reason about than any C variant with 20% of the behaviour being guess work and undefined or plain system specific. Adding win32 and posix apis with different *nixes makes it a minefield. There's a reason autoconf still exists with all those oddball platforms having died long ago. Most "scripting" languages either abstract away or provide a 1:1 wrapper of APIs only providing a good interface probably half of the time. See the recent close(2) discussion started by tarsnap's author for a trivial but unfortunate situation if you want to write some posix code and run it on BSDs, Linux, and OSX. > Anyway, my question is not "which idealized scripting language do you > think should be used for an imaginary debugger's command language?" > It's "which real debugger's actual scripting language do you prefer?" I've never used debuggers extensively to have an opinion. My whole argument is on using the best tool, not what is seemingly familiar. If gdb is used by C and C++ authors, Python is not a language they are automatically able to reason about. It's just not true, and only made popular due to being the new Perl of the Linux distros. Python being in lldb is one of problems FreeBSD faces with putting LLDB in the base system. I've changed the subject. If you want to discuss this, please let's start a new thread, but this is not the gdb list, so most probably is the wrong forum anyway.