In article <E7q6Bo.BBG@world.std.com>, wware@world.std.com (Will Ware) wrote:
> Scott Schwartz (schwartz@galapagos.cse.psu.edu.NO-SPAM) wrote:
> : shriram@ollie.cs.rice.edu (Shriram Krishnamurthi) writes:
> : | I think Ousterhout's notion of a glue language is essentially bogus.
> : Given the number of success stories he cites, that's hard to
> : understand.
>
> I have only skimmed the article so far, but one thing struck me immediately.
> At one point he gives an "anecdotal" table where something is programmed
> originally in C or C++, at enormous expense in programmer hours, and then
> re-implemented in Tcl/Perl/whatever in ten or fifteen minutes. It would be
> interesting to see if the same skew existed for programs that were written
> in scripting languages (or for that matter, Lisp or Scheme or Python) first,
> and then re-implemented in C or C++. It's hard to believe the ratios would
> be as large.
> --
His arguments on "typeless" languages is useless.
You don't need a "scripting language" to
get usable abstractions without the need
to deal with low-level issues.
button .b -text Hello! -font {Times 16} -command {puts hello}
In Macintosh Common Lisp I'll write this as:
(make-instance 'button-dialog-item
:dialog-item-text "Hello"
:view-font '("Times" 16)
:dialog-item-action (lambda (item) (print "hello")))
You can develop user interfaces as fast as with TCL/TK with MCL.
Still you do it in one language, not in two. Without
external *and* internal representation of data/procedures as strings.
--
http://www.lavielle.com/~joswig/
|