Xref: utzoo comp.lang.perl:1747 comp.unix.wizards:22763 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.lang.perl,comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: Looking for balanced critique of Perl Message-ID: Date: 5 Jul 90 21:32:37 GMT References: <4811@muffin.cme.nist.gov> <103428@convex.convex.com> <7825@ncar.ucar.edu> Reply-To: peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 19 In article <7825@ncar.ucar.edu> cruff@handies.UCAR.EDU (Craig Ruff) writes: > In article peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: > >One thing I have found useful is John Ousterhout's TCL: Tool Command > >Language. ... > I used TCL as part of a library on a project, and it turned out to be useful. > However, I would have liked to use a subroutine callable version of perl > instead! Then I wouldn't have had to add all sorts of additional functions > to TCL. Yes, TCL is sort of short in the subroutines department, but I think it makes a better extension language than, say, perl (or REXX, for that matter) because it's such a clean language... like a cross between lisp and awk. This makes it relatively easy to operate on programs as data... something I'd hate to have to do with (say) an algol-like language. I think I'd really prefer a postscript core to the language. Anyone know how to get hold of the author of the Gosling postscript? He doesn't seem to be the Emacs Gosling, and the address in the docco is defunct. -- Peter da Silva. `-_-' +1 713 274 5180.