Possible scripting engine for Sigil

[rogue_ronin]

Originally Posted by dmikov

I have to disagree with you on this one. Easy macro languages are hardest to learn, they are usually proprietary to one piece of software and there fore hard rationalize investing too much time into. Add to it, that vbscript or jscript or ruby or etc has oh around thousands books to learn and NoteTab or whatever < 1, situation becomes even more hard on developer to support it.

I like notepad++ and ultraedit. I would use notepad++ since it's free and has good plugins, but I am using ultraedit since on top of macro language (which both have) it has scripting with a normal language.
I think Microsoft Office can be commanded for at least this accomplishment of including nice scripting capability. Hate their code storage paradigm though.

Well, it looks like Valloric is settled, or close to settled. But my compulsions drive me to answer this.

1) "Easy macro languages are hardest to learn..."

Read that a few times. It still makes no sense. It's up-is-downism, that pseudo-rationalizes some other point.

2) "...they are usually proprietary to one piece of software and there fore hard rationalize investing too much time into."

This is your real point. And it supports exactly the point I was making in my argument. You are a programmer already, as is Valloric. You think like programmers, and want to leverage your knowledge. (I am not belittling the time and effort it took you to learn your skills. I think programmers are awesome.)

My point is that while it might be nice for everyone to learn Python in order to successfully (or adequately) program macros for the editor, it won't happen. Programmers will do it. A few hardy souls will do it. And most people won't. The first step has to be easier than that, thus making (or leaving) people dependent. ("Would somebody please write a macro that...?")

3) I wasn't suggesting recreating or cloning the NoteTab Clip language. I think that the method of creating and accessing the macros is great -- and the language is easy to learn. Factors that I hope can be extracted from observing it.

Okay, I'm done. I see your point, understand your motivations, acknowledge the value of efficiency (and not wanting to recreate the wheel.) It's all good. I may even learn Python, if I'm feeling hardy and I have time. Feel free to school me -- I'll read it, but I won't respond as I don't think that I should argue any further as it would no longer be polite.

m a r

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

My point is that while it might be nice for everyone to learn Python in order to successfully (or adequately) program macros for the editor, it won't happen. Programmers will do it. A few hardy souls will do it. And most people won't. The first step has to be easier than that, thus making (or leaving) people dependent. ("Would somebody please write a macro that...?")

Ah. But you're stating this without any knowledge of Python, and there's the problem. Python is incredibly user-friendly and simple, yet powerful in the right hands. It's becoming the language of choice for teaching people programming, and for good reasons.

It really, really is very easy to learn. I'd dare say it's even intuitive.

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

3) I wasn't suggesting recreating or cloning the NoteTab Clip language. I think that the method of creating and accessing the macros is great -- and the language is easy to learn. Factors that I hope can be extracted from observing it.

Point taken.

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

I'll read it, but I won't respond as I don't think that I should argue any further as it would no longer be polite.

Oh please don't see this as any king of argument. I'm sure everyone sees it as a polite discussion, which it is. I'm certainly always willing to be convinced by sound arguments.

[rogue_ronin]

No worries. I'm going to go look at Python. I just found this.

m a r

[pdurrant]

I've just started to work with python more seriously. I must admit that I like it more and more.

Version 3 looks good - moving strings to be unicode without any of the mucking about with u prefixes.

Breaks a lot of 2.x stuff though...

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

No worries. I'm going to go look at Python. I just found this.

m a r

[krischik]

Originally Posted by Valloric

So Python would currently be the front-runner. There are countless books on it and everyone and their grandmother seems to know it (or are learning it).

With 10'000'000+ World of Warcraft user Lua seem to be ahead - outside normal programming community.

Mind you Lua has been designed for embedding into applications and is embedded not only in Games. Have a look there homepage.

[krischik]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

What the hell is a '[', and where can I find documentation?

'[' is a abbreviation for 'test' - you find the documentation with 'info test' or 'man test'. Once I found that out I have stopped using '[' and use 'test' instead.

So instead of:

if [ -e /Some/File ] ; then

I use:

if test -e /Some/File; then

Martin

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by krischik

'[' is a abbreviation for 'test' - you find the documentation with 'info test' or 'man test'. Once I found that out I have stopped using '[' and use 'test' instead.

I use [[, which is yet another thing, but apparently more versatile

[rogue_ronin]

Originally Posted by krischik

'[' is a abbreviation for 'test' - you find the documentation with 'info test' or 'man test'. Once I found that out I have stopped using '[' and use 'test' instead.

So instead of:

if [ -e /Some/File ] ; then

I use:

if test -e /Some/File; then

Martin

Thanks for the info. Honestly, and without irony, thanks.

You perfectly encapsulate my point -- without knowing it means 'test' you can't find out that it means 'test'. Lots of programmers seem to think that if you type only one character ([) instead of four characters (test) it's better. They can't help themselves.

Yet they won't use Forth. Go figure.



m a r

[krischik]

Originally Posted by rogue_ronin

Yet they won't use Forth. Go figure.

I used Forth on my Atari 400...

[radius]

I vote for lua.

Much smaller runtime than Python to embed but has everything you need for a scripting language. Not that difficult a language to learn; about comparable to Python. Very easy to embed.

[krischik]

Originally Posted by radius

I vote for lua.

Yes why not have a poll? Of course the developer always has the ultimate veto right but still it might be entertaining.

Martin

[WillAdams]

I'd vote for Lua as well. It's intended for embedding and is being used in other text-oriented projects.

William

[Valloric]

Originally Posted by krischik

Yes why not have a poll? Of course the developer always has the ultimate veto right but still it might be entertaining.

A poll would IMO be meaningless. I'm not going to make a decision based on a number, but on sound arguments presented in a discussion. Anyone wanting to present their idea of what scripting language should be embedded needs to be able and willing to convince me and others why should that language be chosen over the rest. Not just click a button.

[Dave Berk]

Originally Posted by WillAdams

I'd vote for Lua as well. It's intended for embedding and is being used in other text-oriented projects.

William

I thought Lua has very limited support for unicode & it was mostly used for games scripting.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Dave Berk

I thought Lua has very limited support for unicode & it was mostly used for games scripting.

Given that it's being used in LuaTeX in order to extend TeX to, among other things, properly support unicode, I doubt it has any significant problem with unicode.

But I've never seen/used Lua.