Re: GNU Extension Language Plans

Peter da Silva (
Thu, 20 Oct 1994 23:14:37 GMT

In article <>, Peter da Silva <> 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 <> 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?"