I graduated in 1990 in Electrical Engineering and since then I have been in university, doing research in the field of DSP. To me programming is more a tool than a job.
About the definition of "scripting language" (that I do not consider a pejorative term). Missing a formal and precise definition, I personally would call a language "scripting" if
it is interpreted, so you do not have an explicit compilation phase (maybe an internal one)
it is not "native interactive," that is its main way of using does not involve an interactive shell.
With this definition Ruby and Python are scripting language, while matlab/octave is not (they are used via a shell), neither Ada nor C (they are compiled). Note that Ruby has its "shell" irb that allows you an interaction with the language, but irb is used (at least, I use it...) just for "fast and dirty" tests, while the main way of use it is to write programs with it.
The definition above seems at odd with "shell scripting" since a shell is interactive by its own nature. Indeed, I personally do not consider bash (or csh, zsh, ...) a language, but an interpreter. The main way of interacting is via command line, but you can put the commands in a file too.
As said above, "scripting" is not (in my feeling) a pejorative term. Every language is a tool, and different problems require different tools. I personally use Ruby for simple programs (I noticed that maintaining gets difficult when the program is too complex), especially if they involve parsing text files (very easy with Ruby). For something more complex or long-lived I go with Ada that IMHO is more suited for writing complex software.
Well, see, you're still only describing interpreted languages, really, with some additional arbitrary criteria. You're welcome to categorize how you like, but it still lacks a real definition, and the meaning varies from one person to the next. Therefore, in terms of policy setting, the term is altogether useless.
Also, I might be missing something you're saying, but Python is very much used via a shell, although you can also execute Python programs directly.
For something more complex or long-lived I go with Ada that IMHO is more suited for writing complex software.
There is a lot of large, complex software for which Python is well-suited. I, like thousands of developers, have created full-blown applications in the language, that are just as maintainable as, say, something written in C++.
Naturally, though, you can (and should) use what you work best in. Just remember that your experience is that: your experience. Plenty of developers are just as successful at making large, complex (and maintainable) software in so-called "scripting languages."
Every language is a tool, and different problems require different tools.
I agree with this much, at least.
I just see Apple's dismissing an entire set of languages, which have been used to deploy production software that people use today, as crummy garden-walling.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
About the definition of "scripting language" (that I do not consider a pejorative term). Missing a formal and precise definition, I personally would call a language "scripting" if
With this definition Ruby and Python are scripting language, while matlab/octave is not (they are used via a shell), neither Ada nor C (they are compiled). Note that Ruby has its "shell" irb that allows you an interaction with the language, but irb is used (at least, I use it...) just for "fast and dirty" tests, while the main way of use it is to write programs with it.
The definition above seems at odd with "shell scripting" since a shell is interactive by its own nature. Indeed, I personally do not consider bash (or csh, zsh, ...) a language, but an interpreter. The main way of interacting is via command line, but you can put the commands in a file too.
As said above, "scripting" is not (in my feeling) a pejorative term. Every language is a tool, and different problems require different tools. I personally use Ruby for simple programs (I noticed that maintaining gets difficult when the program is too complex), especially if they involve parsing text files (very easy with Ruby). For something more complex or long-lived I go with Ada that IMHO is more suited for writing complex software.
Well, see, you're still only describing interpreted languages, really, with some additional arbitrary criteria. You're welcome to categorize how you like, but it still lacks a real definition, and the meaning varies from one person to the next. Therefore, in terms of policy setting, the term is altogether useless.
Also, I might be missing something you're saying, but Python is very much used via a shell, although you can also execute Python programs directly.
There is a lot of large, complex software for which Python is well-suited. I, like thousands of developers, have created full-blown applications in the language, that are just as maintainable as, say, something written in C++.
Naturally, though, you can (and should) use what you work best in. Just remember that your experience is that: your experience. Plenty of developers are just as successful at making large, complex (and maintainable) software in so-called "scripting languages."
I agree with this much, at least.
I just see Apple's dismissing an entire set of languages, which have been used to deploy production software that people use today, as crummy garden-walling.