Re: GNU Extension Language Plans

Peter da Silva (peter@nmti.com)
Thu, 20 Oct 1994 23:14:37 GMT

In article <id.V20E1.5GC@nmti.com>, Peter da Silva <peter@nmti.com> wrote:
> What's wrong with taking some existing implementation, like STk's interpreter,
> and adding a modicum of string and O/S functions? If Tcl is an unholy cross
> of Lisp and Awk, this is sounding like some similarly sanctified marriage of
> Lisp and Perl.

It's been pointed out to me that Perl 5 has apparently considerably tighter
syntax and semantics than the rather ad-hoc Perls of yesteryear, so I'll see
if I can come up with a better analogy. It's a sad day when ones favorite
bad examples pass by the wayside. (HHOS)

I still think that all other things being equal a tighter, smaller language
is better than a larger and more complicated one, and all the enhancements
to Scheme suggested by RMS in <9410190420.AA02904@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> are
a bit worrisome. If this comes down to a fight between Sun and the FSF my
money wouldn't be on Sun (not after they dropped NeWS and OpenLook), and
I'd rather the winner be something more minimalist...

-- 
Peter da Silva                                            `-_-'
Network Management Technology Incorporated                 'U`
1601 Industrial Blvd.     Sugar Land, TX  77478  USA
+1 713 274 5180                       "Hast Du heute schon Deinen Wolf umarmt?"