|Q: Definition of a scripting lang. firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-03-04)|
|Re: Q: Definition of a scripting lang. email@example.com (1995-03-10)|
|Re: Q: Definition of a scripting lang. firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-03-15)|
|Re: Q: Definition of a scripting lang. email@example.com (1995-03-27)|
|Re: Q: Definition of a scripting lang. firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-04-05)|
|Re: Q: Definition of a scripting lang. email@example.com (1995-04-16)|
|Re: Q: Definition of a scripting lang. firstname.lastname@example.org (1995-04-18)|
|From:||email@example.com (Jonathan Eifrig)|
|Organization:||The Johns Hopkins University CS Department|
|Date:||Wed, 15 Mar 1995 19:20:06 GMT|
Our moderator writes:
>[I suppose one might draw the line by saying that a scripting language is
>one where the main effect of a program is to drive another system, while in a
>programming language the program itself is the main action. -John]
Of course, "traditional" programs are nothing more than scripts for a
Ultimately, these sorts of distinctions aren't very helpful; at best they
can be descriptive, not proscriptive.
Personally, I view a language as a "scripting" language if (1) whitespace
is significant, and (2) there is an anti-quotation facility to turn
strings into programs. Both are horrid features, and both are amply found
in sh, perl, and Tk. :-)
Jack Eifrig (firstname.lastname@example.org) The Johns Hopkins University, C.S. Dept.
Return to the
Search the comp.compilers archives again.