Re: Why you should not use Tcl
Barry Merriman (barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu)
Thu, 6 Oct 94 22:19:07 GMT
In article <1994Oct6.140426.10879@midway.uchicago.edu>
twpierce@quads.uchicago.edu (Tim Pierce) writes:
> In article <1994Oct4.205042.17982@math.ucla.edu>,
> Barry Merriman <barry@arnold.math.ucla.edu> wrote:
>
> >it is possible that much of what he [RMS] learned from
> >the emacs project is no longer of importance in the
> >current computing environment
>
> It seems to me that rms's main point was, as Glenn quotes:
>
> RMS> Extensions are often large, complex programs in their own right, and
> RMS> the people who write them deserve the same facilities that other
> RMS> programmers rely on.
>
> That's not a technology issue but a people issue. He
> observes, furthermore, that people *do* already use Tcl and
> other extension languages for large and intricate
> applications in their own right. I'm not sure how you
> intend to refute that
I thought Glenn's main point was: the reason RMS *thinks*
extension are large & complex was that in the old days,
a convenient connection was not available between the high level
language and the low level language---thus everything was done
in the high level language, and this put a lot of stress on
that language. Whereas: in the new world order, a language like
tcl has convenient interoperablity with the low level language
(C), and therefore there is little pressure to build all the
functionality in tcl and the extension is not a large beast.
Howver, this may not be true. or maybe it is, and the folks
who over-use tcl are just not using their tools properly. If
you insist on hammering nails with a screwdriver, you can't
complain that its not a good hammer.
--
Barry Merriman
UCLA Dept. of Math
UCLA Inst. for Fusion and Plasma Research
barry@math.ucla.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)