Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 09:08:13 +0800 (CST) From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.ORG> To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: TCL Message-ID: <199706180108.JAA00340@papillon.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <19970616212005.CG12178@uriah.heep.sax.de> from J Wunsch at "Jun 16, 97 09:20:05 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
J Wunsch writes: > As Gary Clark II wrote: > >> Yes, I know that some of you people dislike PERL the way I dislike >> TCL, but so far I've not seen any apps that TCL could do that PERL could >> not. (Maybe expect, but I've seen PERL code that does the same thing). > > I don't know Tcl (very much), and people who know me also know that > i'm rather a Perl bigot. > > Anyway, i think Tcl is good in what it has been intended for by > Ousterhout: an embeddable language. Sure, Perl 5 also has a C > interface, but i would probably stop using Perl for my project by the > time being tempted to require such an interface. Likewise, i couldn't > imagine to the least would ever be usefully done in Perl, but i think > a Tcl scripting for some C framework can really do its thing. > > As one of the Joels wrote here, each language for what it has been > designed for. I won't disagree with any of this. I just disagree with the concept of having to use different languages for different purposes. (dons asbestos underwear) As far as I am concerned, there are three languages: (Bourne) shell, awk, and C. Sure, it takes more effort to write some things in C than it would in perl or tcl, but you don't get boxed in so easily. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706180108.JAA00340>