Newsgroups: comp.lang.python,comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!news.mathworks.com!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel.ecst.csuchico.edu!olivea!uunet!sytex!smcl
From: smcl@sytex.com (Scott McLoughlin)
Subject: Re: What language would you use?
Message-ID: <5uR9uc1w165w@sytex.com>
Keywords: scheme tcl tk python language opinion
Sender: bbs@sytex.com
Organization: Sytex Access Ltd.
References: <39b7ha$j9v@zeno.NSCF.Org>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 01:12:15 GMT
Lines: 34
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.python:2340 comp.lang.tcl:21326 comp.lang.scheme:10916 comp.lang.misc:18713

roberts@alpha (Jack C. Roberts) writes:

> 
> * Usable in a commercial environment
> * User interface features (windowing)
> * Easy to learn and use
> * Future of language
> * Ability to move to PC/Mac platforms
> * Extendability
> * Availability of other free tools in language
> * dynamically loadable extensions
> * speed
> * process size
> 

Howdy,
        I'd recommend a commercial Common Lisp environment.
Allegro supports various Unices and Windows (mac?). There
is MCL and PowerLisp for the Macintosh. There are a number
of Common Lisp's for DOS/PC's, some very low cost.
        Unless you need call/cc, you can use CL like 
you would use Scheme. What are typically proprietary
extensions in Scheme (structures, etc.) implementations are
standardized in Common Lisp.  Most (all?) commerical CL
implementations will include a fairly extensive FFI and
bindings to the "popular" native OS services (GUI, etc.)
        I'd think almost any commerical CL implementation
would beat the bejeebers out of TCL when it comes to 
speed (So will most free ones, for that matter).

=============================================
Scott McLoughlin
Conscious Computing
=============================================
