scsh-users
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Ousterhout and Tcl lost the plot with latest paper

To: scsh@martigny.ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: Ousterhout and Tcl lost the plot with latest paper
From: will@peanut.jpl.nasa.gov (Will Duquette)
Date: 18 Apr 1997 11:32:58 -0700
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
In article <s6yn2qxkwix.fsf@aalh02.alcatel.com.au> Chris.Bitmead@alcatel.com.au 
(Chris Bitmead uid(x22068)) writes:

   The only benefit you claim for Tcl that doesn't also apply to scheme
   is #3. You would like to type...

   func arg1 arg2
   instead of
   (func arg2 arg2)

   Ok, a minor but perhaps valid point if you want dumb users to use it
   like a shell.

And then, he goes on to suggest ways to make Scheme do that.

What I was expressing with my point #3 was a psychological effect, and
it extends to functions written in the language as well as individual
commands, though I notice it most when typing commands interactively.
I also prefer

        if {$x < 3} {
             foo arg1 arg2 
        } else {
             bar arg3 arg4
        }

to something like

        (if (< x 3)
         (foo arg1 arg2)
         (bar arg3 arg4))

I confess, though I've toyed with Lisp and Scheme in the past, I'm
primarily a C programmer.  Most of the people I work with are C
or C++ programmers.  The Tcl version gives us warm fuzzies, and
the Scheme version doesn't.

I did a web search yesterday, and found a couple of Scheme
implementations which would probably work as well for my purposes as
Tcl, except for the psychological issues I mention.  If I were
starting over, though, I'd still pick Tcl.  It's plenty good enough,
and it "feels" better to me.  Frankly, that's what's important.


















-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Will Duquette, JPL  | William.H.Duquette@jpl.nasa.gov
But I speak only    | will@bean.jpl.nasa.gov
for myself.         | It's amazing what you can do with the right tools.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>