in reply to Re^2: At Last, a Useful Definition of "Scripting Language"
in thread At Last, a Useful Definition of "Scripting Language"

scripting languages, because they can be created and/or modified very easily on the fly, are used to do things, and non-scripting programming languages are used to make things.

This seems to get to the heart of it. But, does this mean you are unable to identify a scripting language without examining how its used?

This also implies a different development methodology for scripting than for making things.

  • Comment on Re^3: At Last, a Useful Definition of "Scripting Language"

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: At Last, a Useful Definition of "Scripting Language"
by apotheon (Deacon) on Oct 26, 2004 at 18:43 UTC
    I think you're right in both suppositions. Keep in mind that "scripting" is a verb that has been appropriated for use as an adjective here: it describes what one does with the language. As such, how it is used is central to whether or not that label (scripting language) is applicable. That's my take, anyway.

    One need not necessarily use a different development methodology when scripting as opposed to doing more "permanent" programming, but it would probably behoove you to allow differences in approach for these differing tasks. The differing methodologies are indeed implied (at least in tendency and efficiency for the task), to some extent, without being "laws", so to speak.

    - apotheon
    CopyWrite Chad Perrin