Subject: Re: Ousterhout and Tcl lost the plot with latest paper From: Erik Naggum <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: 1997/04/02 Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.scheme.scsh,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.tcl,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.perl.misc,comp.lang.python,comp.lang.eiffel Message-ID: <email@example.com> * Bill Eldridge | I don't know where Oesterhout's reference on MFC comes from | (I'm just looking at Brain & Lovette's book). considering that bad code can be written in any language, any language comparison performed using examples must be judged by the quality of the examples in each language. it can't be all that hard to write a bad example in language A and a good example in language B, and then proclaim language B to be the winner -- this is how people compare languages all the time, so either those who read them are bad programmers in any language (or are not programmers at all) and don't know how to reject the bad examples, or they already agree with the author of the comparison that language B is better than language A. in either case, it's a waste of anything but marketing money. it appears to me that this is indeed how Tcl is marketed. in other words, prepare to see Tcl claim a significant market share. also, I'm sure people who read a paper with such a pompous title are unable to detect any amount of false marketing. "Scripting: Higher-Level Programming for the 21st Century", indeed. a language is only as good as the worst example in languages it claims to win over. #\Erik -- I'm no longer young enough to know everything.