I don't want to be in the business of adding 20 different interpreters > to base. If I did, it'd be lua first by a mile. > > That said, tinyscheme is designed to be directly embedded. If it > turns out people are dying to add scheme support to top and systat, we > can talk about a shared library, but global changes are way far > more involved. > > I have no problem with the idea in principle.. HOWEVER:
This has the odor of similar things that have been tried in the past. I *could* be wrong but a big diff and lots more code in something for "future extensibility" because it's "designed to be embedded" is all fine and good.. *IF SOMEONE IS REALLY GOING TO USE IT TO EXTEND THINGS* - the same can be said for embedding stuff like that in top and systat. I'd be a lot happier voicing an opinion in support of something like this if I also saw diffs and interest in *using* them to extend functionality later or replace some things easier to do with scheme to make the code simpler - something kjell was alluding to. A promise of "this is bigger and bloated now but will be really cool in the future" isn't so good if the people putting it in see getting scheme integration in as the goal - otherwise, congrats, you've just added another kitchen sink. albeit a small one, if nobody has demonstrable plans to cook with the sink, and cook well, don't bother. So Jasper, I think it's cool too. but a cool kitchen that doesn't get used is a waste. Where's the beef? Right now I'm on the fence for this one. -Bob
