Date: Fri, 12 Sep 1997 19:35:18 +0200 From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch) To: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: jamil@counterintelligence.ml.org (Jamil J. Weatherbee) Subject: Re: Interpreter compilers Message-ID: <19970912193518.HZ51399@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970910235358.19803B-100000@counterintelligence.ml.org>; from Jamil J. Weatherbee on Sep 10, 1997 23:54:59 -0700 References: <199709100221.MAA00790@word.smith.net.au> <Pine.BSF.3.96.970910235358.19803B-100000@counterintelligence.ml.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Jamil J. Weatherbee wrote: > And I'll add that my experience with TCL/TK suggests that tcl is more > useful --- only my opinion, but I am fiercly antiperl. Which of course makes you an ideal judge. No. If you're biased, don't try to justify about the usefulness of things you're biased against. This can't work. I'm slightly biased towards Perl myself, but have also been using Tcl/Tk, and i dare say both have their good and weak points. There's no such thing like ``The Universal Programming Language'', so simply get used to the idea that different problems can often be solved more effectively with different tools. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19970912193518.HZ51399>