Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.scheme
From: PS@teeny.demon.co.uk (Paul Shirley)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!demon!teeny.demon.co.uk!PS
Subject: Re: Why you should not use Tcl
References: <9409232314.AA29957@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <361goe$bfu@news.bridge.com> <jester.780637757@crash.cts.com>
Organization: TWG
Reply-To: PS@teeny.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.27
Lines: 71
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 1994 19:24:19 +0000
Message-ID: <780693859snz@teeny.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu gnu.misc.discuss:18420 comp.lang.tcl:19458 comp.lang.scheme:10014

From: hightec@sbusol.rz.uni-sb.de (Michael Schumacher)

>PPS: Richard, I hope you won't get flamed too much for this subject.  You
>haven't deserved this. Oh - I have a wish: if you should have some time on
>your hands, could you please write an Oberon compiler? This would turn out
>to be a lot more useful than to invent two other languages. And if you want
>to be real cool, please make sure that Oberon's runtime system and libraries
>are distributed under a BSDish copyright...


Frankly RMS deserves all the flames he gets. The post read as a simple
spoiler for someone else's work. If RMS and the FSF want to write competing
tools they should get on with it and let them compete. If they see faults
in another tool they should point them out and let people examine the
evidence.
But asking people not to use a rival tool is flamebait.


From: exukenc@exu.ericsson.com (Ken Corey)
>Richard Stallman (rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu) wrote:
>: [Please redistribute wherever appropriate.]
>: 		     Why you should not use Tcl
>: 			Richard Stallman, GNU Project
>
>Geez, Richard.  You blew it with this one.
>
>Does this remind anyone else of an individual whose initials are BG?
>
>Does GNU = MS?
>

Yeah, don't buy X ,wait for Y, our super duper version Real Soon Now...
If Microsoft get publically flayed for this sort of thing, why should RMS
be exempt?


From: marcus@ee.pdx.edu (Marcus Daniels)

paik@mlo.dec.com (Samuel S. Paik) writes:

>Tcl promotes throwaway hacks, while elisp and Scheme merely allow them.

So whats the problem with 'throw away hacks'. If I have a simple
problem I use a 'throw away hack' and I don't see much point in firing up
a full scale programming tool to do it.



In article <jester.780637757@crash.cts.com>
           jester@crash.cts.com "Ken Bibb" writes:
>In <361goe$bfu@news.bridge.com> james@bridge.com (James Montebello) writes:
>
>>Richard Stallman (rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu) wrote:
>>: Tcl has a peculiar syntax that appeals to hackers because of its
>>: simplicity.  But Tcl syntax seems strange to most users. 
>
>>I cannot agree with this.  o you have any evidence to support such a
>>sweeping statement? I, for one, find Tcl's syntax a good deal more
>>readable than any Lisp variant.
>
>I find Lisp to be more readable than Tcl.  Be thankful that there is
>a choice of languages instead of attacking one that you do not like
                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^         
>(it's probably not one of your primary languages).
>

Perhaps you should tell RMS the same thing.

-- 
Paul Shirley:    These views are not those of my employer
                offstage "Paul, aren't you self employed?"
