🚀 go-pugleaf

Quoting Tom Christiansen  <tchrist@mox.perl.com>
Peter da Silva <peter@nmti.com> writes:
>> [TCL]'s just not good for large applications.
>
>I'm not talking about large applications. I'm talking about extension
>languages. I wouldn't use "make", "nroff", or HTML for large applications
>either.

Peter,

Are you so blinded by the bright light of declarative semantics
that you fail to see examples of your own argument?  With the
possible exception of make the languages you list above have been
used with great success in the context of moderate to large systems.

It is apparent that troff has been used with some success in at
least one application of moderate size that we are all familiar
with.  Indeed the Unix manuals are a fantastic example of many
enabling principles which allow programming in the large.

In the case of HTML, I for one would not want to claim that the
web is small.  Together HTML and the URL provide another fine
example of a declarative language with strong modular orthogonality.

In their target domains each of these languages, including make,
performs admirably "in the large."  I find your comment that they
are merely "extension languages" that are inappropriate for use in
contexts of large systems irresponsible.

chris
--
PROGRAMMING:   2. A pastime similar to banging one's head against a
wall, but with fewer opportunities for reward.
	-- THE FREE ON-LINE DICTIONARY OF COMPUTING