Why is tcl broken?

[Cameron Laird]

In article <375FDCA7.62FF at mailserver.hursley.ibm.com>,
Paul Duffin  <pduffin at mailserver.hursley.ibm.com> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>Tcl has many OO features, you can have C++ like, Java like, SmallTalk
>like ... it is up to you. A lot of them are implemented in pure Tcl.
With new ones coming on line all the time:  <URL:http://
starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/comp.lang.tcl/tcl.html#ootcl>.
>
>> Has anyone messed with Guile, GNU's extension language?  One specific
>> thing they want to do is be a "universal" back end, that is you can write
>> translators from language A to Guile, and their page[2] mentions Python
>> several times...
>> 
>
>Nice idea but I doubt they will even manage one language completely,
>never mind 2, or 3, or 4 ...
Oh, it appears to be in use already.  Skepticism about
its larger ambitions, though, is widespread <URL:http://
www.sunworld.com/swol-11-1998/swol-11-regex.html>.  I
wish the Guile folk well, and certainly RSM and others
continue to invest energy in it.  From my distant ob-
servation post, it doesn't feel as though it has the
critical mass of resources necessary to "take off".

I believe the time *is* ripe for deeper connections be-
tween different languages.  Perhaps what the original
questioner was after was something like, "What are apt
areas for Tcl, and how can other technologies exploit
its strengths?"

OK, that's too coy.  I recognize that *I* wanted him
to have asked that, but he definitely didn't do so.
Like Paul, I find it hard to think of syntax and seman-
tics which are bad in isolation from context.
			.
			.
			.
-- 

Cameron Laird           http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
claird at NeoSoft.com      +1 281 996 8546 FAX