Tom Christiansen wrote:
> In comp.lang.perl.misc,
> email@example.com (Robert Virding) writes:
> :A final question which has long interested me and which seems relevant
> :to this whole discussion: who would use Tcl if it DIDN'T have such a
> :integrated interface to Tk?
> The people using it for expect.
I'm sure the crowd would be much greater than just the expect users out
there. There are many products out there that use tcl as an extension /
macro language. Products which don't necessarily use Tk. Ours uses tcl
as an extension language in the core product as well as using an
extended 'wish' for the GUIs. The fact that we embed tcl is what makes
our product better than our competition's (in our opinion anyway).
I for one will always consider embedding tcl in any future projects I'm
involved in. It's just flat the best embeddable language out there. Not
the most powerful, not the most efficient. But best nonetheless (IMHO)
for the end-user. I am a user interface designer / developer, and part
of an applications "user interface" is it's scripting interface if it
has one. So, I tend to approach scripting languages from the end-user's
point of view. I am firmly convinced that tcl provides an end user with
the most power for the smallest amount of (the end user's) time
Perl is great for what perl is, but I don't particularly care for it as
language embedded in other programs. Lisp variants have a special place
in my heart (I admit, I *love* lisp in almost all of its forms and have
written my share of lisp), but lisp isn't a very user-friendly scripting
language. To me, the biggest drawback in embedding lisp in a commercial
product is that list pretty much requires a text editor that knows a
little about lisp syntax.
Bryan Oakley mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
Software Engineer http://www1.clearlight.com/~oakley/
Healthcare Communications, Inc. http://www.healthcare.com/