I'm of the persuasion that thinks there is no useful, universally accepted definition of "scripting language." Even if we did pick one of the various common definitions and stick with it, I don't see the point. I think it's far better just to talk about languages in terms of their concrete properties, rather than trying to come up with strange, arbitrary categories to fit them into.
That said, your post does indeed talk about some concrete properties of various languages. Because of this, I think it's a pretty interesting discussion, but the overall purpose -- to find a "good" definition of "scripting language" -- strikes me as odd. Hopefully you'll see my post not as poo-pooing further discussion, but rather encouraging the kind I think is more useful. :-)
Are you posting in the right place? Check out Where do I post X? to know for sure.
Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags. Currently these include the following:
<code> <a> <b> <big>
<blockquote> <br /> <dd>
<dl> <dt> <em> <font>
<h1> <h2> <h3> <h4>
<h5> <h6> <hr /> <i>
<li> <nbsp> <ol> <p>
<small> <strike> <strong>
<sub> <sup> <table>
<td> <th> <tr> <tt>
Snippets of code should be wrapped in
<code> tags not
<pre> tags. In fact, <pre>
tags should generally be avoided. If they must
be used, extreme care should be
taken to ensure that their contents do not
have long lines (<70 chars), in order to prevent
horizontal scrolling (and possible janitor
Want more info? How to link
or How to display code and escape characters
are good places to start.