Xref: utzoo comp.lang.misc:7255 comp.lang.icon:687 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!spool.mu.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!eru!hagbard!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!charon!guido From: guido@cwi.nl (Guido van Rossum) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.icon Subject: Re: Survey Results : Perl vs Icon vs .... (> 500 lines) Message-ID: <3252@charon.cwi.nl> Date: 3 Apr 91 09:27:21 GMT References: <1991Apr1.043321.11251@midway.uchicago.edu> Sender: news@cwi.nl Followup-To: comp.lang.misc Distribution: comp Lines: 32 Richard L. Goerwitz replies to Stephen Bevan, regarding Icon: Bevan: >> - Unix interface is quite primitive. >> If you just want to use a command, you can use `callout', anything >> more complicated requires building a personal interpreter (not as >> difficult as it may sound) Goerwitz: >It is quite true that Icon does not provide a good low-level interface >with the operating system. Moreover this is unlikely to change, since >one of the great aims of Icon has been to keep it portable. Luckily, >customization (as you note) is not as difficult as it might seem. I don't buy the argument that you can't provide a good Unix interface because of portability. Python is designed to be just as portable as Icon (runs on the Mac, for starters) but its Unix interface is quite good (and will improve). The trick is that all the Unix dependencies are encapsulated in a separate module. Unix dependent applications won't run on non-Unix systems, but then they are probably not needed there either. Many applications and library modules can be (and are!) written without the use of explicit Unix features. Of course, the standard I/O interface exists on all systems. There is no excuse for not providing a decent Unix interface for a language that runs under Unix. Leaving it up to local initiative ("customization") is fatal for portability. --Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam "Life's gotta be more than meeting pretty faces and sitting on them"