On Sun, 2005/04/24 (MDT), <ho(_at_)alum(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu> wrote:
I'd thought Sieve had some advantages in being able to support
SMTP directly; if it does, I can't tell from his comments.
Since P can support SMTP directly (whatever that means), this is not a
difference to base our decision on. Moreover, we should be more concerned
with support for other protocols because there is no need to invent a new
language just for SMTP support: Sieve, Milter, etc. are already available.
I'd like a narrowly scoped, limited language, because I want to
make it very fast for the OPES matching and dispatching functions.
I do not think that language scope is directly related to language
"speed". For example, languages such as C++ have very broad scope but can
produce programs that are "faster" than programs written in some
domain-specific languages.
It has to have a good interface to the underlying OS network
functions.
I am not sure why this is necessary, but Sieve does not seem to have
access to the OS network functions. Such access (as virtually anything
else) can be added via Sieve extensions.
Failing that, I'll take a general purpose pre-existing language!
You would still need to define some standard "libraries" or "modules" so
that people can share high-level configuration files and do not have to
write low-level code. IMO, using an existing general-purpose language
would let you avoid defining boring things like math operators, but the
most challanging work on defining rules-specific interfaces would remain.
Alex.