Date: Wed, 18 Jun 1997 10:15:02 +0800 (CST) From: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.ORG> To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: grog@FreeBSD.ORG, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: TCL Message-ID: <199706180215.KAA00545@papillon.lemis.com> In-Reply-To: <199706180159.LAA19495@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from Michael Smith at "Jun 18, 97 11:29:46 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michael Smith writes: > Greg Lehey stands accused of saying: >> >> 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. > > Speaking of boxing, watch out for the ears next time you come 'round > 8) Don't worry, I'll probably forget to bring them with me :-) Now why do you think I talked about asbestos underwear? I was obviously targeting the wrong area. > There are things that a good extension language like Tcl can do that > would require an astronomical amount of effort to achieve in C; using > such a language lets you leverage the fact that someone else has > already done the work, and given you a very flexible, generalised > means for accessing it. Sure, I said that it would take more effort. I also find that re-using other people's functions takes some effort, and as time goes on, I've found that less and less worthwhile. Apart from the fact that they often need significant mods, you might find 5 or 10 candidates which you need to evaluate before you decide *which* one you want to modify. Greg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199706180215.KAA00545>