Date: Wed, 28 Feb 1996 08:36:10 +0530 From: A JOSEPH KOSHY <koshy@india.hp.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, kelly@yarmouth.edu, kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de, narvi@haldjas.folklore.ee, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Win32 (was:Re: Go SCSI! Big improvement...) Message-ID: <199602280306.AA152876771@fakir.india.hp.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 27 Feb 1996 13:39:19 MST." <199602272039.NAA05704@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
tl> jk> * SCO had a product called Visual Tcl which they used for system admin
tl> I'd suggest wksh instead. There is now a book on it, and sample
Thanks for bringing this up: WKSH had slipped my mind.
Between Tk and WKSH I personally prefer Tk because:
(a) the WKSH language has become complex to the point of being baroque;
(the ability to define/use "C" structures and pointers, to make calls to
Xlib/Xt Intrinsics as part of the language is case in point).
This would mean a resource hungry interpreter, not to mention
requiring Xt.
Tcl/Tk is much smaller in comparision but gives almost all the
functionality and in some cases (the canvas widget for example)
provides superior functionality.
(b) Tcl/Tk are easier to embed into applications; the same cannot be said of
WKSH.
(c) And, very important, Tk is free while WKSH is not. This means that
improvements to it are easier to make and its technical quality is likely
to improve faster than proprietary products.
That said, I note that DTKSH (nee' WKSH) IS part of CDE and thus is part of
some kind of `standard' whereas Tcl/Tk is not.
Koshy
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602280306.AA152876771>