Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!sunic!trane.uninett.no!eunet.no!nuug!EU.net!uunet!world!edwards
From: edwards@world.std.com (Jonathan Edwards)
Subject: Re: Why you should not use Tcl
Message-ID: <Cwouov.1Mx@world.std.com>
Organization: IntraNet, Inc.
References: <9409232314.AA29957@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
Date: Sun, 25 Sep 1994 13:55:43 GMT
Lines: 31
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu gnu.misc.discuss:18227 comp.lang.tcl:19212 comp.lang.scheme:9855

In article <9409232314.AA29957@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu>,
Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu> wrote:
>
>For these reasons, the GNU project is not going to use Tcl in GNU
>software.  Instead we want to provide two languages, similar in
>semantics but with different syntaxes.  One will be Lisp-like, and one
>will have a more traditional algebraic syntax.

If you want to make a dent in Tcl, you are going to have to be a lot more
specific about your plans. What and when?
Developing (two!) new languages will take years.
The world will not wait for you. I certainly won't.

If you want to be relevant, you will have to come up with some concrete
proposal of how to leverage existing technology to come up with an
alternative to Tcl quickly. You have that technology already: elisp!

Why not build an "algebraic" Tcl-like dialect on top of elisp?
You would want a "quote-by-default" semantics like Tcl that is optimized
for one-liners and trivial programs. But you would be able to call upon
the full generality of Lisp when needed.

Another view of the same idea: turn emacs into a windowing shell.
The primitives are for widgets instead of text editing.



-- 
Jonathan Edwards				edwards@intranet.com
IntraNet, Inc					617-527-7020
One Gateway Center				FAX: 617-527-6779
