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: slebetman on 14 Dec 2009 04:58 On Dec 14, 1:06 am, Arndt Roger Schneider <arndt.ro...(a)web.de> wrote: > APN schrieb: > > >To borrow an old slogan from oldsmobile, this indeed is "Not Your > >Father's Tcl" (nyf-T, how's that for a new language name - nifty, > >no?). But that is a good thing. > > >Personally, I feel many/most of the new features greatly expand the > >scope and size of software systems you can build using Tcl. So I > >suppose that means it is no longer restricted (if it ever was) to be > >solely viewed as "tool" language. In that sense, I understand your > >point of view but if you feel a language should not "grow" features, > >what's preventing you from sticking with older, smaller versions (even > >Tcl 7.6) for embedding? > > [snip] > > support. In that case what's preventing you from ignoring new features? note: Although arrays were introduced a very long time ago I only started using it around 2004 simply because I wanted to ignore new stuff. Similarly I'm still not using dicts opting instead for [foreach {x y} ...] processing of key-value lists (which is basically what dicts are). Old habbits die hard and tcl, unlike some other languages, allow me to keep using my old habbits.
From: Arndt Roger Schneider on 14 Dec 2009 05:17 slebetman(a)yahoo.com schrieb: >On Dec 14, 1:06 am, Arndt Roger Schneider <arndt.ro...(a)web.de> wrote: > > >>APN schrieb: >> >> >> >>>To borrow an old slogan from oldsmobile, this indeed is "Not Your >>>Father's Tcl" (nyf-T, how's that for a new language name - nifty, >>>no?). But that is a good thing. >>> >>> >>>Personally, I feel many/most of the new features greatly expand the >>>scope and size of software systems you can build using Tcl. So I >>>suppose that means it is no longer restricted (if it ever was) to be >>>solely viewed as "tool" language. In that sense, I understand your >>>point of view but if you feel a language should not "grow" features, >>>what's preventing you from sticking with older, smaller versions (even >>>Tcl 7.6) for embedding? >>> >>> >>[snip] >> >>support. >> >> > >In that case what's preventing you from ignoring new features? > > > *me*? Nothing. My answer is about why not to stick with an extremely old versions. >note: Although arrays were introduced a very long time ago I only >started using it around 2004 simply because I wanted to ignore new >stuff. Similarly I'm still not using dicts opting instead for [foreach >{x y} ...] processing of key-value lists (which is basically what >dicts are). Old habbits die hard and tcl, unlike some other languages, >allow me to keep using my old habbits. > > I think, you did miss the point of the original posting. To remind you: the author complained that the Tcl language resembles every other language out there and this goes against the fundamental design of said Tcl-language. He got a point there. -roger
From: David N. Welton on 14 Dec 2009 05:19 > Lua is emerging as a popular small language for embedded scripting. > Perhaps that might meet your needs better. Another thing worth considering that I haven't seen in this thread so far is Jim: http://jim.berlios.de/ It's very small and compact, and is actively used for eCos, which is an embedded operating system targetting fairly small systems.
From: Arjen Markus on 14 Dec 2009 05:34 On 14 dec, 11:19, "David N. Welton" <davidnwel...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Lua is emerging as a popular small language for embedded scripting. > > Perhaps that might meet your needs better. > > Another thing worth considering that I haven't seen in this thread so > far is Jim: > > http://jim.berlios.de/ > > It's very small and compact, and is actively used for eCos, which is > an embedded operating system targetting fairly small systems. You beat me to it :). Regards, Arjen
From: Donal K. Fellows on 14 Dec 2009 05:50
On 13 Dec, 12:24, 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. As others have noted, the definition of lightweight has changed over time. Moore's Law applies at the bottom end too, and not just by driving down the cost of the baseline. Given that, Tcl's increases in size are relatively reasonable. > Now [Tcl] is getting fat and "object oriented" with a lot of > unnecesary "features" that would belong to extensions for special > purpose applications. There's quite a few people who disagree with you. But for further progress to be made, we need to identify if you're displeased with having an object system in Tcl itself specifically or an example of what you feel to be a wider problem. With respect to objects-in-Tcl, it's actually quite a small feature, and mainly serves to help clean out the Augean mess that was the homebrew OO system scene (you might not have noticed it, but it definitely was there). It's not about doing anything nasty like changing the fundamental value system of Tcl! Looking at the wider issue, I think it's hard for me to grasp how to answer your point. Tcl has features because someone wanted them and persuaded others that adding the feature was a good idea. Almost all of them are useful for many things (though I'd be surprised if you found all useful for you; different apps need different subsets). If you'd really wanted to complain, you'd have picked on things other than the object system. The unicode support is pretty large (what with all the encodings and memory implications) and the new [clock] command is sizable too. Yet these things seem popular too. (A truly-aimed barb would be [unload].) > 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. There's another language called CPL already. Generally, I've looked at splitting Tcl into several pieces to make it easier to strip out things not wanted by the hardcore embedders, but it's difficult. The things that are easy to remove tend to be the things that a large preponderance of scripts want, and which are pretty small too. The large parts that embedders think they don't need are right at the core of what modern Tcl is. > I think this is the result of having very good developers not > knowing what to do. Please, don't consider this posting a flame war > provocation: it is my opinion. I think you slightly failed in the targeting of your post, you know. It feels like a provocation. It feels like an insult. It also feels like a railing rant against the changing of the world. Generally speaking, saying "thus far and no further" without a deeply principled reason for saying it, well, it doesn't tend to earn much respect or notice. The crowd just streams past you. I'll get off your lawn now. :-) Donal. |