From ...
From: Erik Naggum <erik@naggum.no>
Subject: Re: Reply to Ousterhout's reply (was Re: Ousterhout and Tcl ...)
Date: 1997/04/11
Message-ID: <3069757616140397@naggum.no>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 232313948
References: <rcybba5k9c.fsf@redwood.skiles.gatech.edu> <3069617830783259@naggum.no> <334CEE73.29B7@absyss.fr> <3069681642982192@naggum.no> <5il58v$me2@srv13s4.cas.org>
mail-copies-to: never
Organization: Naggum Software; +47 2295 0313; http://www.naggum.no
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


* lvirden@cas.org
| Note that there _are_ at least two implementations of Tcl now (One is
| in pure Java, the other in C).  Does that move 
| it into the 'language' arena, despite there not being a formal definition?

the first sentence after the sentence you quoted answered your question.
to quote myself:

    languages exhibit the _defining_ property that there is a specification
    of the syntax, semantics, etc, apart from any implementation; or,
    briefly, that specification is superior in importance to
    implementation.

you don't get a language merely by reimplementing a tool.  you get a
language when the two (or more) implementations (in danger of diverting)
need to agree on the language they implement in some formal way and use (or
write) a specification to help that process.

why is this such a terribly complex thing to grasp?

#\Erik
-- 
I'm no longer young enough to know everything.