From owner-freebsd-hackers  Thu Mar 16 10:04:07 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id KAA16499 for hackers-outgoing; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 10:04:07 -0800
Received: from phoenix.net (gclarkii@phoenix.phoenix.net [199.3.232.2]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id KAA16490 for <hackers@FreeBSD.org>; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 10:04:04 -0800
Received: (from gclarkii@localhost) by  phoenix.net (8.6.10/8.6.6) id MAA11929; Thu, 16 Mar 1995 12:01:18 -0600
From: Gary Clark II <gclarkii@phoenix.net>
Message-Id: <199503161801.MAA11929@ phoenix.net>
Subject: Re: tkperl?
To: hasty@netcom.com (Amancio Hasty Jr)
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 12:01:18 -0500 (CST)
Cc: gclarkii@phoenix.net, hasty@netcom.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org
In-Reply-To: <199503151956.LAA11464@netcom14.netcom.com> from "Amancio Hasty Jr" at Mar 15, 95 11:56:53 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 503       
Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> 
> >The reason 4.X was chosen was for the simple fact 5.0 was still in beta/alpha
> > and I did not want to have to handle the patch of the week syndrome.
> >Gary
> 
> I wish you had chosen tcl/tk ... The install program could have been
> written in tcl/tk 
> 
> And no I am not going to get into a debate of tcl/tk vs. perl ...
> 
> 	Cheers,
> 	Amancio
> 
As far as I know, TCL was brought up, but no one wanted to bmake it and 
import.  I doubt if anyone would compliane if TCL was added.  

Gary