What do you mean? He *did* specify an alternative, namely STk.
Presumably, he speaks out at this time, because the lisp-like alternative
he contemplates will be enough like STk (when applied to tk) that code
written in STk has some chance of forward compatibility.
I think RMS's position is ... what, "reasonable" enough. I suppose.
But I hope the baby part of tcl's concepts aren't going to be discarded
with the bathwater parts. And there's plenty of baby there, baby.
--
Wayne Throop throopw%sheol.uucp@dg-rtp.dg.com
throop@aur.alcatel.com