Re: LYNX-DEV java, javascript and extension languages

[Jan Hlavacek]

On Fri, Jan 09, 1998 at 06:19:07PM -0800, address@hidden wrote:
> >     * Subject: Re: LYNX-DEV Re: Setting up a fund for specific
> >       development?
> >     * From: David Combs <address@hidden>
> >     * Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 11:49:32 -0800 (PST)
> >
> >It seems that only by going to java can we simplify the code,
> >and break it up, so that LOTS of us can hack on it individually;
> >enables us to keep our work separate and non-interfering until
> >it is accepted and merged in.
> 
> Ah. The crux of the matter. Enabling people to use Java so they can hack
> into these JAVA-LYNX sites easier. Dude, a sysadmin who would allow any
> sort of Java-based code they didn't write themselves to run under a
> Java-based Lynx server is a total idiot. You can bet on the fact that if
> there ever was a Java-based version of lynx, the first thing that would be
> disabled on 99.999% of the sites and personal PC's running it would be the
> ablility to run external Java-based scripts like those found on WWW pages.
> 
> So in the end all you would end up with is a version of Lynx that still
> won't support Java even though it's written in Java....

I don't think this was David's point.  The way I see it,  there have been
three different topics mixed together in several threads,  causing quite a bit
of confusion:

1. Implementation of javascript in lynx.  This is quite old topic,  has been
discussed numerous times before.  AFAIK,  someone has been working on it.  I
don't follow this discussion,  as it has very little importance for me.  This
is something completely different than writing lynx in Java (see 3.) 

2. Somebody recently suggested embedding of an extension language interpreter
to lynx.  This is again completely different than the previous topic.  Such an
interpreter wouldn't execute remote code contained in web pages.  It could be
used to extend and configure lynx by users.  Something like elisp for emacs,
slang for slrn,  perl for vim (and elvis, vile?) and so on.  I personally like
the idea very much,  and am willing do devote some of my (virtually
nonexistent) free time to it.  You didn't mention it in your post,  but I
include it here just for completeness.

3. Finally,  there was a suggestion to rewrite lynx completely, as the code is
getting too hard to maintain.  David Combs suggested that it should be done in
Java,  since it will be easier,  more efficient and so on.  I don't completely
agree with this,  but it is definitely an option.  Such a rewrite may or may
not support things like JavaScript.  It may be easier to implement JavaScript
support in Java version of Lynx,  but it doesn't have to be done.  IMHO
David's reason for suggesting Java was not JavaScript.

lahvak
-- 
Jan Hlav\'{a}\v{c}ek
address@hidden  (Blind Carbon Copies will bounce)
www: http://www.math.ohio-state.edu/~lahvak/