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 15 Dec 2009 08:16 Larry W. Virden schrieb: > > Or even a language which has "gaps" in functionality. > Depends on one's definition of "gaps in functionality". No, it depends on the definition of Tcl/Tk, on what people think it is, on its image to the exterior world. If it is a cool object oriented all purpose software development language with a lot of cool features, specially for writing big programms, then it has very big gaps on functionality. If it is a tool comand language, and people, specially software developers, are aware of it, then it is very powerful tool. Every piece of software with an API to Tcl makes the value of Tcl much bigger, even if Tcl/Tk developers arent involved on it, because the possibility of efficiently combining software grows. I was for example very glad to find the API for GraphgicsMagick some weeks ago. And yes, for this, Tcl/Tk should remain as small as possible, because the real work ist done by the software it glues. If you need a cool object oriented language, the glue it! Rodrigo Readi.
From: Rodericus on 15 Dec 2009 08:33 On 14 Dez., 23:31, "Gerald W. Lester" <Gerald.Les...(a)cox.net> wrote: > Which brings us to the question of what is Tcl -- and no I'm not being funny. > > To me Tcl is the Endekalogue -- *everything* else is just an extension and > can be overwritten (including the "built in" commands). > > All one has to really learn is the Endekalogue, everything else can be > looked up. No, syntax is not all. You have objects, like numbers and strings, and you must be able to write all recursive functions on them without having to program a turing machine. You must be able to communicate with the system and the outer world. You must be able to efficiently write efficient programs with a minimal tool command language. I think for example that the addition of expansion syntax, if this was done efficiently, is a very good improvement, perhaps based more on programming experience than on reflection of what is the ideal language. Rodrigo Readi.
From: Rodericus on 15 Dec 2009 08:56 On 15 Dez., 13:48, "David N. Welton" <davidnwel...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > What was it that you are actually trying to build or do? 99,999% of people dealing with computers are either application users that never write a program or professional application writers, that need cool programming languages. I am neither the first nor the second. For me a computer is a programmable tool. I dont write any comercial program, from time to time a program that run only once to solve a task, or an application with the functionality I need for my work (at the time historical research on the german Recihsbank). As Emacs became extreemely fat, I began to use vi, althought till now I use emacs for programming. As Tcl/Tk is dying, I will have perhaps to use more C, I will find the way. Rodrigo Readi
From: Uwe Klein on 15 Dec 2009 09:27 Larry W. Virden wrote: > And of all those changes, every one can be ignored to some extent. > UNICODE is probably the closest thing that really impacts the way > someone codes, and that only if the input is going to be UNICODE. The > rest of these changes are features that one can make use of, but need > not worry about if they so choose. Worldwide only a minority of users produce pure ASCII content. for the nonminority it used to be an unending PITA ( and still is to some extend on the web, people still start flamewars on botched up encodings in netnews messages ;-) uwe.
From: David N. Welton on 15 Dec 2009 09:42
> As Emacs became extreemely fat, I began to use vi, althought till now > I use emacs for programming. As Tcl/Tk is dying, I will have perhaps > to use more C, I will find the way. You might have a look at 'ed', as "ed is the standard text editor". |