Re: BeanShell alternatives (was Re: Status of projectand adding 1.5 generics)

> == quote fschmidt
> I think this is an important discussion to have.  We should be able to 
> agree
> on something that is usable by everyone.  My view is that avoiding changes
> and enhancement will make BeanShell a dead end eventually as other 
> scripting
> languages add features that people want.  The important thing to preserve 
> in
> BeanShell is Java compatibility.  This cannot be compromised, as it has 
> been
> in Groovy.  But adding new features is fine as long as strict Java code
> continues to work properly.  No one has to use the extra features.

This is where there is a fundimental difference in philosophy.  While I 
agree with your other email that there is few people to lead ... and in fact 
this may be a moot discussion because of that.
This core description of what the *purpose* of a branch is you describe 
above is different then what others may belive, me for example.  And the 
goals are conflicting. I'm not saying your wrong, just that your goals and 
mine (and from this latest thread atleast one other) differ and conflict.

I disagree that adding new features is fine ... for the beanshell that I 
want atleast.
Thats one reason I'm still at b.04 instead of using the beanshell2 base, 
even though I know there are good fixes there.  I dont know what else is 
there and I dont want to spend the time to find out for sure.  Ok I admit it 
I'm lazy and risk-adverse for this project :)

The core issue, to me,  is risk management.  In the ideal world everything 
"continues to work properly", but in reality it often does not.   Its also 
often difficult to tell even if your an expert and very familiar with the 
code if a proposed new feature actually doesnt effect anything, in theory or 
in practice.   And how much effort will you put in if it unexpectedly breaks 
someone elses's production base ...
I also disagree that limiting changes to bug fixes makes a project dead.  It 
makes it stable, not dead.  And stable is a good thing.  Not the only thing, 
but its a good thing.  Keeping up with java is a stretch goal ... but 
personally,
I'm happy with the beanshell 2.0b4 syntax as it is.

Again, not saying your wrong , just that there is a philosophical difference 
between a 'actively developed/evolving' language and a "stable and 
maintained one".  And a practical difference as well.

That said, this is still probabably all moot. We had this same discussion 
about 1 or 2 years ago and nothing ever much happened with it.  As you 
discovered there were practically no contributers to beanshell2, nor were 
there any arguments with it.
-----------------------------------------------------------
David A. Lee
[email protected]
http://www.calldei.com 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by MIX09, March 18-20, 2009 in Las Vegas, Nevada.
The future of the web can't happen without you.  Join us at MIX09 to help
pave the way to the Next Web now. Learn more and register at
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;208669438;13503038;i?http://2009.visitmix.com/