Date: Wed, 19 Jun 1996 12:15:21 -0700 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: rjk@sparcmill.grauel.com (Richard J Kuhns), p.richards@elsevier.co.uk, phk@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: tcl -- what's going on here. Message-ID: <25337.835211721@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Jun 1996 11:40:21 PDT." <199606191840.LAA13530@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> There is no reason to bring in an interpreter that has as it's primary > benefit the ability to easily implement what is, effectively, "throw > away code". I believe "throw away code" should not be encouraged in > the source tree. Whoa, Tonto! I think you do John a vast disservice by characterizing TCL as some sort of disposable code generation facility. It's as much designed and capable of writing throw-away code as pretty much ANY reasonably high-level language out there, and if you've seen fit to write only disposable code with it (or seen this in frequent practice) then I can only council you or your TCL role-models to rethink their design principles as they are NOT using TCL to its fullest and most capable advantage. I've written plenty of code in TCL and C which was never designed to be disposable and is still in active use today. Just because some task becomes easier and faster to implement by no means implies that its lifetime is correspondingly shortened. When that does happen it's usually a fallacy induced by personal bias, not some hacking law of physics. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?25337.835211721>