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