Lan Barnes wrote:
On Thu, May 1, 2008 12:44 pm, R P Herrold wrote:
Tk is unacceptable, it has to be a modern toolkit. Perl is
maybe acceptable (others may disagree)
???!!!
Yes, others do. Vehemently.
Let me charitably interpret this as "Tcl/Tk is _perceived_ as being old
news by the 'oh it's new, shiny' crowd."
Well ... There are a couple of things
The big one, IMO, was that Tcl had a wrenching transition just as a
bunch of people were starting to look around for alternatives to Perl.
The whole 8.0->8.3 transition when they finally kicked Ousterhout out of
the codebase was a lot of pain. It also didn't help that Tcl/Tk didn't
get along with Windows during that timeframe, either.
This is what got me into Python. I was looking for something better
than C++ or Perl, and Tcl/Tk was on the radar in a big way (I am an EE
and Tcl/Tk was *the* extension language of the Berkeley EE apps). But,
after dealing with a bunch of the 8.0 transition crap, I wrote it off
and learned Python.
Of course, after that, inertia sets in. Tcl/Tk is now firmly in the
same camp as Ruby, for me. Insufficiently better or different from
Python for me to waste time on it.
I was also never a big fan of [incr Tcl]. However, I'm not blind enough
to believe that's the reason I rejected the language.
With the advent of tile, Tk widgets in Tcl evel look like windoze, no that
that's necessarily an endorsement.
Ooo ... ooo ... ook?
Take some time, remove the typos, fix the grammar and clarify that
statement, thanks.
Me, I like SW that works and scripting languages that are fast,
expressive, easy to write, maintain, and scale well. And did I mention
truely cross-platform?
And Tcl/Tk was none of those in the 8.0->8.3 transition. In my option,
that's where Tcl/Tk lost the war.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
