In article <joswig-ya023180002903970336460001@news.lavielle.com>,
joswig@lavielle.com (Rainer Joswig) writes:
>
> 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}
He keeps getting confused as to what property is attributable to what. For
instance, the above statement. It has almost nothing to do specifically with
TCL, but with the design of TK. Writing this example in TCL. Perl, Python, or
STk all pretty much look the same. (Minor syntactic differences.) I've been of
the opinion that what most people like about TCL/Tk is Tk, not TCL. Some people
will put up with TCL for inorder to use Tk. Others will bind Tk to their
favorite "scripting" language.
He also gets confused when he talks about object oriented programming being a
failure. He attributes the short comings of one implementation (C++) to the
whole approach, much like people who reject Lisp/Scheme because of one
particular implementation.
Overall, the paper justs confirms my suspicion that Ousterhout doesn't have a
clue.
Mike McDonald
mikemac@engr.sgi.com
|