4 ms·
> At the time, TCL was being pushed heavily for this purpose. I had a very low opinion of TCL, basically because it wasn't Lisp. I figured this was the case[1]
by bch 12y ago
> At the time, TCL was being pushed heavily for this purpose. I had a very low opinion of TCL, basically because it wasn't Lisp.
I figured this was the case[1], but hadn't actually seen it stated explicitly. His dislike usually seemed broached in hated of a commercial shepherd (Sun), or going on about (perceived or real) technical shortcomings.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3408617 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3408617
- bitwize 12y agoHe does kinna have a point though -- had Tcl remained Sun's property, Oracle would now be closed-sourcing it and trying to assess huge license and support fees for it. And/or suing people over it.
- lispm 12y agoOusterhout did some marketing pieces and he stated a lot of random things. http://www.tcl.tk/doc/scripting.html http://www.tcl.tk/doc/scripting.html There was some controversy around it at the time...
- bch 12y agoI didn't realize that was a very controversial paper. If the timelines are correct though, that wouldn't have been offending rms yet: > rms: That was not the end of the GNU projects involved with Lisp. Later on around 1995, we were looking into starting a graphical desktop project. [...] > > At the time, TCL was being pushed heavily for this purpose. I had a very low opinion of TCL... -- JOs paper appears to be published 1998, 3 years later, citing papers from 1996. [edit: formatting]
- lispm 12y agoThere were similar earlier claims made by Osterhout. I just picked one which demonstrated the topic.