[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?
From: |
Jeff Read |
Subject: |
Re: To gh_ or not to gh_? |
Date: |
Thu, 10 May 2001 23:31:33 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.0.1i |
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 04:27:57PM -0400, Sam Tregar wrote:
> Because RMS said so? Using google searches to follow broken links from
> the Guile docs I recently read the "TCL wars" archives. RMS uses the
> language-angnosticism of his proposed GNU scripting language as a major
> retorical point justifying a new language. If you read his statements
> literally it sounds as though Guile should be handling TCL, C and Python
> by now (Perl was also mentioned, but that's pure fantasy)... Has this
> goal been discarded? Postponed?
I don't know how the Guile developers feel but it seems to me as though
Microsoft .NET got there sooner, and did it better. At least, that's the
perception, as everybody and their brother (even the Perl and Python guys) are
rallying behind .NET as THE cross-platform, language-agnostic development
solution. (There is even a .NET Scheme implementation somewhere...)
It's pretty amazing that RMS set forth these lofty goals for Guile, and years
later all that most anybody uses it for is a damned fine embedded or standalone
Scheme interpreter (which it is... damned fine, that is). As for me, I don't
care if Guile never groks Perl or Tcl code; I'd rather build programs with it
than with .NET any day.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Read <address@hidden>
Unix Code Artist, Anime Fan, Really Cool Guy
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, (continued)
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Bill Gribble, 2001/05/07
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Evan Prodromou, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Neil Jerram, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Keith Wright, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Sam Tregar, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Sam Tregar, 2001/05/10
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Thomas Bushnell, BSG, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?,
Jeff Read <=
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Sam Tregar, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Ken Fox, 2001/05/11
- Message not available
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Jeff Read, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Jürgen A. Erhard, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Lars J. Aas, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/11
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Marius Vollmer, 2001/05/12
- more on continuations, Bill Schottstaedt, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Rob Browning, 2001/05/12
- Re: To gh_ or not to gh_?, Dirk Herrmann, 2001/05/13