On 4/14/2011 10:13, nemesis wrote:
> BTW, I wonder when will OS'es finally automatically download and install
> required interpreters based on file type.

When the people distributing the commercial OS can get an *official* version 
of an interpreter and want to support it. Windows already does this, but it 
almost always comes up with "I don't know which interpreter you want", 
because if people get Ruby from Windows, they'll expect MS to support it.

It's basically the problem with closed-source commercial software - you 
don't want to take on responsibilities you're not paid for (like supporting 
arbitrary interpreters you don't own) and you can't support them anyway if 
they're closed source.

 > You click on a script and if
> there's no interpreter, the OS informs you of the file type and required
> interpreter and if you want it to fetch, install and then execute the
> script. Security risk? Not like you don't have to provide an administrative
> password to install things...

Try this. Pick an extension for an interpreter you don't have installed 
under Windows. (Like, create a xyz.rb file.) Click on it. Watch the magic of 
exactly what you're asking for.

> I mean, it's not like python and company are completely unfamiliar to
> desktop OSes. They've been around for so long, how come there's no
> standardized database of known scripting languages and it's file types...

Because nobody paid Microsoft to add Python to the list?

Heck, linux people laugh at having a central registry to map file extensions 
to mime types. Java programs have all kinds of problems running with the 
wrong JVM. With that sort of attitude, you think they'll make a global list 
of the definitive versions of an interpreter?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 10:13, nemesis wrote:
> BTW, I wonder when will OS'es finally automatically download and install
> required interpreters based on file type.

Actually, Windows does.  Create "xxx.pl" as a file, assuming you don't have 
Perl installed. Click on it. It brings up a web page that says "Hey, this 
looks like a Perl file. Do you want to go download the Perl development 
environment?"

I wonder how much MS charges for being listed, that so many interpreters are 
*not* listed there.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New escreveu:
> On 4/14/2011 10:13, nemesis wrote:
>> BTW, I wonder when will OS'es finally automatically download and install
>> required interpreters based on file type.
> 
> Try this. Pick an extension for an interpreter you don't have installed 
> under Windows. (Like, create a xyz.rb file.) Click on it. Watch the 
> magic of exactly what you're asking for.

then I guess problem already solved for 90% of people out there, let 
alone technical people wanting to export and render a scene with povray.

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

> ... without having to figure out what else you need to download and
> install before you can run it.

   Yes, that was my original concern, but I'm not very inclined to learn
JScript and Applescript, to not talk about unix shell script... :)

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres
		
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

El 14/04/11 17:57, Darren New escribió:
> Well, as nemesis says, my intention was to suggest a simple
> cross-platform scripting language (like Tcl or Python) for the
> script, *plus* do the up-front work of wrapping it in a native
> no-install executable for each of the major platforms if you care to
>  promote usage. Distribute both the short script and the "use this if
>  you don't want to install the scripting environment" version.

   My problem with the executable option was that my script needed
editing in *all cases*, for every scene.

   But now that the apparent "simple" option of distributing a script
showed to be too complex, I've decided to do a more proper
application... nothing fancy, just a little dialog window with a few
input controls and a big button.

   But most likely I will use Java, as it seems to fill all my
requirements and expectations... and also because a close friend is
willing to help me learning to use Netbeans.

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres
		
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

> BTW, I wonder when will OS'es finally automatically download and
> install required interpreters based on file type.

  What I wonder is why doesn't exists a standard scripting language
available on all platforms by default...


-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres
		
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

On 4/14/2011 14:22, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
> My problem with the executable option was that my script needed
> editing in *all cases*, for every scene.

You *could* prompt every time you run the script? Or take a file name on the 
command line to indicate what the parameters are? Or the name of an ini file 
to read from? Depending on how many there are?

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Coding without comments is like
    driving without turn signals."

Post a reply to this message

> One thing that should be noted is that not all people accept all
> scripting languages equally well, and some may refuse to install
> interpreters for whatever language you choose. I, for instance,
> would hesitate to install a PHP interpreter on my machine, but would
> be ok with Perl, Python or Ruby (and, as you probably guess, have Tcl
>  installed already); I must confess this is an only marginally
> rationalized preference, but I may not be alone with such a
> preference.
>

   That was exactly my fear about distributing just my handy PHP 
script... ;)

> That said, when it comes to writing platform-independent scripts
> with the intention to distribute them, I think the most commonly used
>  language for such a purpose might be Perl.

   Yes, it seems so, but I've already decided in favor of the last of
your options:

> In case you should decide to split up the script into a kind of
> config file and the actual code, Java would probably be the way to
> go.

   Not for that reason, but I finally decided to write it in Java using
Netbeans. I can just distribute a single jar (plus the source code for
the curious), and seems easy enough as to have it finished by tomorrow.

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres
		
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

El 14/04/11 23:29, Darren New escribió:
> On 4/14/2011 14:22, Jaime Vives Piqueres wrote:
>> My problem with the executable option was that my script needed
>> editing in *all cases*, for every scene.
>
> You *could* prompt every time you run the script? Or take a file name
> on the command line to indicate what the parameters are? Or the name
> of an ini file to read from? Depending on how many there are?
>

   Yes, of course all these were possible... I just wanted to avoid the
extra work of implementing any of them. So I was originally looking for
an interpreted language for which I could just distribute the editable
script. But by now I've already realized that I cannot be that lazy...
in the end, it's just a few text fields, some dropdowns and a button.

-- 
Jaime Vives Piqueres
		
La Persistencia de la Ignorancia
http://www.ignorancia.org

Post a reply to this message

Jaime Vives Piqueres escreveu:

>> BTW, I wonder when will OS'es finally automatically download and
>> install required interpreters based on file type.
> 
>  What I wonder is why doesn't exists a standard scripting language
> available on all platforms by default...

oh it does!  It's called javascript. ;)

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message