Michel Schinz <Michel.Schinz@epfl.ch> writes:
> Yoann Padioleau <email@example.com> writes:
> > firstname.lastname@example.org (Michel Schinz) writes:
> >> - Scsh is based on a well-designed and general programming language
> >> (Scheme) that has been developed over many years. Thus, scsh is a
> >> general programming tool, not a quickly hacked tool with limited
> >> applications.
> > Are you joking ? this kind of sentences does not help at all scsh to be
> > used.
> > Try to tell the truth please.
> > Perl has been developed over many years, it is not a quickly hacked tool
> > with
> > limited applications.
> I do try to tell the truth, honestly. I think there is a
> misunderstanding here: you think that everything written in this
> section compares scsh to Perl. This is not the case. This section
How does scsh compare to other scripting languages, like Perl?
> tries to compare scsh to other scripting languages, Perl being only
> one of them. Other examples include sh/tcsh, Python, Ruby, etc. I
putting in the same bag sh and perl/python/ruby is
like putting together C and scheme.
They are totally different langage.
I have to admit that perl can be cryptic, but certainly not Ruby nor python.
python have too continuations.
> think the section title is pretty explicit.
I dont think so.
> I certainly do not personally think that Perl has limited application.
> As a matter of fact, I think that Perl, because of the massive amount
> of code available as libraries, can be used for more tasks than scsh.
> That said, I find scsh to be better designed than Perl, and by a large
> factor. But that's *my* opinion.
> >> Among other things, Scheme (and thus scsh) has serious data
> >> structures, not just strings like many scripting languages. It
> >> also has powerful control structures like continuations and, in
> >> the case of Scheme 48, exceptions.
> > All of this (except continuations) is present in perl too.
> Once again, I'm not comparing directly scsh and Perl here. But I agree
> that the "many scripting language" part is misleading, since many
> scripting languages now have better support for real data structures.
Sure. Say ruby for example.
> >> This approach is fundamentally different from, say, the Perl
> >> approach, where functions have the same name (often cryptic) and
> >> behavior (often strange) as their Unix equivalents.
> > that is not true.
> Could you please elaborate?
> Here are the names of some functions in scsh and Perl which should
> illustrate my point:
> scsh | Perl
> delete-file | unlink
> file-readable? | -r
> file-info | stat
> process-group | getpgrp
> ... and so on
I have to agree.
But in that case, if you compare scsh to ruby on this point u will be
as ruby tried to choose good name.
You just cant compare scsh with "the existing scripting langages" and
say that scsh is better.
The only advantage i see in scheme over other langages, is its powerful macro
You should try to argument on this point, but not on the other features of scsh
which are already present in many scripting langages. In fact
the word scripting langage is just a non-sense, perl/ruby/python are no more
used only for administrative quick and dirty task.
Yoann Padioleau, INSA de Rennes, France,
Opinions expressed here are only mine. Je n'écris qu'à titre personnel.
**____ Get Free. Be Smart. Simply use Linux and Free Software. ____**