Scripting question, [small programming question

[grumman Fan]

On 5/23/05, Steven W. Orr <steveo at syslang.net> wrote:
> On Monday, May 23rd 2005 at 14:15 -0400, quoth grumman Fan:
> 
> =>On 5/23/05, Steven W. Orr <steveo at syslang.net> wrote:
> =>> On Monday, May 23rd 2005 at 13:02 -0400, quoth grumman Fan:
> =>> =>So "scripting" is the same thing as "programming"?
> =>> =>
> =>> =>"I scripted a new Linux kernel today."
> =>> =>
> =>> =>Ha. snort.
> =>>
> =>> If it makes you feel better, don't think in term of "scripting language".
> =>> Think instead in terms of Very High Level Language. Things like perl or
> =>> ruby or python or tcl qualify. They are intended to be scripting languages
> =>> that are reasonable (or better) choices for use as system implementation
> =>> languages.
> =>
> =>Let me see if I understand this correctly:
> =>
> =>You are positting that perl, ruby and tcl are "system implementation
> =>languages"?
> =>Is that correct?
> 
> I am not positting, but I am positing. 
Congratulations, Let us know if you need more work proofreading and
maybe we can get you some as a typesetter as well.  (You'll distinctly
be moving up.)

> Correct. I can't tell if you're
> being sarcastic or if you are really inquisitive. On the assumption that
> you are being sarcastic (based also on your previous nasal difficulties),

No, you missed it.  but don't worry, I'll spell it out for you: snort
= derision.

> let's look at what a system implementation language requires. Is there any
> system call that is not accessible from perl/ruby/tcl/python? No. Is there
> any OO programming construct that is not available from these languages?

One other characteristic: Suitable for use within the OS itself.
Since Some OS's have been written in PCODE type language (Algol for example)
being interpreted is not a dis qualifier all by itself. But most
interpreted languages would not qualify.

> No. The only difference is really the method of execution: Do we only
> execute ECOFF or do we allow interpreted or PCODE?

>  Bash scripting does not
> qualify as a system implementation language because there are a ton of
> things that you can not do. 


> I'm just wondering if, at the heart of this,
> there is some sort of discrimination against non-ecoff people. ;-)

I dunno - you'll have to ask the guy who started the thread