🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <39dr6b$77q@csnews.cs.Colorado.EDU>, Tom Christiansen <tchrist@mox.perl.com> writes:
>:-> In gnu.misc.discuss, peter@nmti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>:
>:I doubt that a clean Scheme version would be much, if any, more complex.
>:As you can see, the resulting Tcl makefile is just as readable and
>:maintainable as the original. Why look, Tcl is now a declarative language!
>:Nope... but the metalanguage put together from this subset of Tcl *is*.
>
>tcl is certainly better for making new little languages than perl is.
>it's because it doesn't define syntax much, and because it uses braces for
>single quoting.  it's just not good for large applications.

It is if you design your code/application correctly.  If you want to write
large monolithic applications where the application runs as one process, no tcl
is not good.  If you write modular applications where the application runs as
multiple processes, tcl is good (at least good enough to control an oil and gas
production facility in the Gulf of Mexico).

I'd defining large as over 100,000 lines of tcl/tk code.

==========================================================================
* Gerald W. Lester                        !   Voice:  (504)-889-2784     *
* Computerized Processes Unlimited        !   FAX:    (504)-889-2799     *
* 4200 S. I-10 Service Road, Suite #205   !   E-Mail: gwl@cpu.com        *
* Metairie, LA  70001                     !   Hours:  09:00-17:00 CDT    *
==========================================================================