Great article at Lesscode.org, responding to Gosling’s dismissal of scripting languages.
Usually, I ignore attacks like Gosling’s as not worth my limited time and attention. I love Python, and it really doesn’t bother me when the ignorant attack my language-of-choice. This article is better than the original by orders of magnitude, due to its heavy linking and its excellent reader commentary.
My favorite quote from the article is: "this is why XML is used so heavily in Java for things like O/R mapping, dependency injection, configuration, build processes, etc. — XML is Java’s scripting language". It is actually from a reader comment, which is worth quoting in full.
But Ruby, Python, Perl, Smalltalk, etc. are not specialized scripting languages. They are general purpose programming languages. I believe one of the reasons the term “scripting language” has stuck with them is partially because it’s become so common to create mini-languages (i.e. DSLs) in dynamic languages that are specialized for certain tasks. So it’s sometimes hard to separate the specialized pieces from the general purpose pieces. Contrast that with static languages, where you are forced to create a completely separate “scripting language” when you need to provide a constrained/specialized language (this is why XML is used so heavily in Java for things like O/R mapping, dependency injection, configuration, build processes, etc. — XML is Java’s scripting language). In dynamic languages, you are generally not required to leave the core language to get that specialization: you use techniques like meta-programming and DSLs or just include/require/use some designated file at a designated point and let it do it’s thing with the API.
