Tcl/TK is indeed dying
in [TCL]
|
Prev: www.prevayler.org anyone do an in ram data base with transactionlog in tcl?
Next: accessing GUI with TWAPI (was: Accessing GUI of CAD through Tcl/Tk)
From: Rodericus on 18 Dec 2009 03:38 On 17 Dez., 17:00, "tom.rmadilo" <tom.rmad...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > But it should be pointed out that this particular form of goto isn't > in any way unstructured, the original code in C and my use are > designed as an efficient loop contained within a single procedure (so > many function calls and variable passing are avoided). [...] I never came to the idea of jumping from to an uncalled procedure, is that possible in C? How are the local variables of the new procedure set? > But the fact that code can shift under your feet in Tcl means that you > can't implement a [goto] which is implemented anything like your > program counter. Yes, there may be a problem. Rodrigo.
From: Donal K. Fellows on 18 Dec 2009 05:33 On 18 Dec, 08:38, Rodericus <sc...(a)web.de> wrote: > I never came to the idea of jumping from to an uncalled procedure, is > that possible in C? Only by an egregious hack. > How are the local variables of the new procedure set? Hah! You jest, yes? (Non-local gotos are true evil. Just about anything else you could consider would be better.) Donal.
From: Alexandre Ferrieux on 18 Dec 2009 05:53 On Dec 15, 7:33 pm, Tcl Bliss <tcl.bl...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > One very visible major shortcoming, IMHO, is a flaky support of > command line history browsing. Most modern scripting languages support > readline but in TCL it doesn't work by default and requires a good > effort to make it work. I have not been patient enough lately to make > it work. Of course, I can use Tkcon but not when I ssh to a remote > system, which I do a lot. Uh, on Windows it works out of the box, and on major Unices you can use the universal readline wrapper "rlwrap". Not reinventing the wheel is a rather smart choice when people are worrying about bloat (and I do worry about bloat from time to time). -Alex
From: Sean Woods on 18 Dec 2009 09:00 On Dec 14, 2:19 pm, Óscar Fuentes <o...(a)wanadoo.es> wrote: > "Donal K. Fellows" <donal.k.fell...(a)manchester.ac.uk> writes: > > [snip] > > > That's one of the *great* things about Tcl, that you can easily extend > > it with extra functionality through packages, your own code, or > > through calling external programs. > > And how is this different from every other existent programming > language? > > -- > Óscar I guess to the extent to which I can bend it to my will. ;)
From: Sean Woods on 18 Dec 2009 09:08
On Dec 13, 7:24 am, Rodericus <sc...(a)web.de> wrote: > Tk/Tk was my predilect language for small programms, because it was > minimalistic and expresive, low weight and extensible, lisp and C > similar, ideal for embedding it in other programms. Now it is getting > fat and "object oriented" with a lot of unnecesary "features" that > would belong to extensions for special purpose applications. It is > getting a "Cool Programming Language (CPL)" for cool people, not any > more a "Tool Command Language". I think, a splitting and a renaming of > the cool language to something like Cpl/Tk#++ would have been a much > better approach. I think this is the result of having very good > developers not knowing what to do. Please, dont consider this posting > a flame war provocation: it is my oppinion. > > Rodrigo Readi Popularity and survival are not synonymous. A company is not going to take 10 years of R&D and re-write it from scratch into something else simply because it's not en vogue. (Pause) Ok, we can all stop laughing. |