Re: STk *and* TCL

From: <>
Date: Wed, 05 Oct 94 00:48:42 -0400

> From: (David Fox)
> Subject: Re: STk *and* TCL
> writes:
> > > I'm not sure I made myself clear. We want to be able to
> > > create a system that contains *both* TCL code and STk code.
> >
> > One cannot help but wonder why. On the face of it your request seems
> > absurd. What would you possibly gain from this? One might just as
> > happily mix:
> To put it simply, the reason is that a lot of our system's code is
> already written in TCl, and I prefer to write scheme.
> > I'll request you demonstrate that this would benefit STk. Include
> > proof.

MisQuote me out of context, changing the humour to bitchy
whining? Pth.

> Axiom - more people using STk is a benefit.
> Theorem - more people would use STk if they could incorporate
> existing TCL code in their application.
> Proof - At least one person in our group has said he would
> use STk under these conditions. N+1 > N. Q.E.D.

Well, Im certainly not the one to say yes or no to this Idea, but I'll
make people use STk if this ISNT done. At least 2. So Y'all have more to
gain from doing nothing, not to mention you can actually work on
things that appeal to a broad audience of tcl haters who made you
great in the first place. No sympathy for the humour devoid and tcl
impaired masses.

As for your point.. I prefer to write Modula-3, but I'm not about to
ask for MST-3k.

John Redford (AKA GArrow) | 3,600 hours of tape.       | 5 cans of Scotchguard.
Received on Wed Oct 05 1994 - 05:49:50 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Mon Jul 21 2014 - 19:38:59 CEST