Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[Winston Kodogo]

Speaking as someone who is too old and senile and stupid even to
become a High Court Judge, I find the lack of "improvements" to Tcl to
be a major attraction. I don’t need to program in it that often – I
maintain one moderately-sized script which hardly ever changes -  but
when I need to re-visit it, I find that I can pick it up again easily,
unlike whatever moving-target language the cool kids are using this
week. It also doesn’t hurt that Ousterhout’s book is a model of
clarity.

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[Axel Belinfante]

since most of the follow-up discussion went sideways:

> Anyone know the state of the art of writing 9p clients/servers in tcl?

at some point in time it seemed to be  http://wiki.tcl.tk/15632
(but I seriously do hope you already found that)

Axel - nowadays also enjoying go

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[Balwinder S Dheeman]

On 10/10/2011 07:05 PM, Paul Lalonde wrote:
> C is a low level language, not intermediate.
>
> In the second decade of the 21st century is it too much to ask for
> garbage collection and type safety?

"Go was born out of *frustration* with existing languages and
environments for systems programming." -- Go-lang FAQ

Seems, the creators of this language did not bother to check this
http://colinm.org/language_checklist.html or may be the said check-list
was not avail at that time ;)

> Hmm.  I'm probably just feeding a troll.

Ahm, do check with your doctor; FYI, I'm not hiding behind an anonymous
ID :P

--
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman
(http://werc.homelinux.net/contact/)

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[L N]

> And look at it this way: delegation helps the economy by employing
> people and selling processors and memory :-)

http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2011/7/109885-the-case-for-ramcloud/fulltext

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[hiro]

> And look at it this way: delegation helps the economy by employing
> people and selling processors and memory :-)

I hope this is sarcasm?

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[erik quanstrom]

On Mon Oct 10 09:52:36 EDT 2011, ph.softnet@gmail.com wrote:
> It's not necessary that you're feeding a troll, in my opinion.
> I actually agree with the idea that C is enough.
> I don't understand why you need garbage collection ... why do you need
> to have garbage in the first place?
> Just because time goes by does not mean everything should keep on
> changing you know.
> People have to understand that certain technologies can just stay as
> they are, if they work well.

"need" is such a funny word.  we don't need keyboards, we can just use
toggles.  there have been a few other trivial improvments in the day-to-day
lives of programmers like bitmap displays, which real computer scientists can ignore.

so as time goes on, it's easy for programmers to get a whiggish view of the world.
but you're equally correct, that the mere passage of time between x and y is not
an argument that either is better.

so we're left only to argue this one on the merits of garbage collection.  :-)
now that i think of it, garbage collection was invented more than a decade
before c.  so the preceeding two paragraphs have been argued in the moot
court.  in any event, i think one can consider manual memory management
to often be akin to manually managing registerization.  there is a good chance
that in most cases that an automatic and systematic process can do a better
job than an ad hoc one.

yet, i program in c most of the time.  i don't know of many operating
systems written in a automaticly gc'd language.

- erik

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[Wes Kussmaul]

I wrote my first significant software project in 1971 in IBM 1620
assembly language. When I got done, I felt I was equipped to develop
anything. In my subsequent job in a COBOL shop I became the house
curmudgeon, sure that the language just got in the way.

But looking back, there is no way we could have accomplished what we did
in assembler.

It's not that we're not all Von Neumanns, it's that if you want to
accomplish bigger and bigger things you have to rely upon inefficient,
inexpert automation to assume the burden of detail.

Same way with people: you have to delegate, even though you know you can
do it 5x better and faster than the people you delegate to.

And look at it this way: delegation helps the economy by employing
people and selling processors and memory :-)

Wes Kussmaul


On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 15:51 +0200, simon softnet wrote:
> It's not necessary that you're feeding a troll, in my opinion.
> I actually agree with the idea that C is enough.
> I don't understand why you need garbage collection ... why do you need
> to have garbage in the first place?
> Just because time goes by does not mean everything should keep on
> changing you know.
> People have to understand that certain technologies can just stay as
> they are, if they work well.
>
> Simon
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Paul Lalonde <paul.a.lalonde@gmail.com> wrote:
> > C is a low level language, not intermediate.
> > In the second decade of the 21st century is it too much to ask for garbage
> > collection and type safety?
> > Hmm.  I'm probably just feeding a troll.
> > Paul
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Balwinder S Dheeman
> > <bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/09/2011 08:04 AM, Russ Cox wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 8:02 PM, L N<leonardnemoi@gmail.com>  wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyone know the state of the art of writing 9p clients/servers in tcl?
> >>>
> >>> I believe the state of the art is not to use tcl.  :-)
> >>> I'm having fun writing 9p clients in Go.
> >>
> >> IMHO, That Go or Go-language thingy seems to be an overkill to me for that
> >> matter; that's just an opinion and opinions may differ.
> >>
> >> The best portable and efficient intermediate level language is C and I
> >> hope it will remain a 'lingua franca' for computer programmers for years to
> >> come ;)
> >>
> >> --
> >> Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman
> >> (http://werc.homelinux.net/contact/)
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > I'm migrating my email.  plalonde@telus.net will soon be disconnected.
> >  Please use paul.a.lalonde@gmail.com from now on.
> >
> >
>

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[simon softnet]

It's not necessary that you're feeding a troll, in my opinion.
I actually agree with the idea that C is enough.
I don't understand why you need garbage collection ... why do you need
to have garbage in the first place?
Just because time goes by does not mean everything should keep on
changing you know.
People have to understand that certain technologies can just stay as
they are, if they work well.

Simon

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Paul Lalonde <paul.a.lalonde@gmail.com> wrote:
> C is a low level language, not intermediate.
> In the second decade of the 21st century is it too much to ask for garbage
> collection and type safety?
> Hmm.  I'm probably just feeding a troll.
> Paul
>
> On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Balwinder S Dheeman
> <bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 10/09/2011 08:04 AM, Russ Cox wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 8:02 PM, L N<leonardnemoi@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Anyone know the state of the art of writing 9p clients/servers in tcl?
>>>
>>> I believe the state of the art is not to use tcl.  :-)
>>> I'm having fun writing 9p clients in Go.
>>
>> IMHO, That Go or Go-language thingy seems to be an overkill to me for that
>> matter; that's just an opinion and opinions may differ.
>>
>> The best portable and efficient intermediate level language is C and I
>> hope it will remain a 'lingua franca' for computer programmers for years to
>> come ;)
>>
>> --
>> Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman
>> (http://werc.homelinux.net/contact/)
>>
>
>
>
> --
> I'm migrating my email.  plalonde@telus.net will soon be disconnected.
>  Please use paul.a.lalonde@gmail.com from now on.
>
>

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[Paul Lalonde]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1189 bytes --]

C is a low level language, not intermediate.

In the second decade of the 21st century is it too much to ask for garbage
collection and type safety?

Hmm.  I'm probably just feeding a troll.

Paul

On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 2:05 AM, Balwinder S Dheeman <
bsd.SANSPAM@anu.homelinux.net> wrote:

> On 10/09/2011 08:04 AM, Russ Cox wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 8:02 PM, L N<leonardnemoi@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> Anyone know the state of the art of writing 9p clients/servers in tcl?
>>>
>>
>> I believe the state of the art is not to use tcl.  :-)
>> I'm having fun writing 9p clients in Go.
>>
>
> IMHO, That Go or Go-language thingy seems to be an overkill to me for that
> matter; that's just an opinion and opinions may differ.
>
> The best portable and efficient intermediate level language is C and I hope
> it will remain a 'lingua franca' for computer programmers for years to come
> ;)
>
> --
> Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman
> (http://werc.homelinux.net/**contact/ <http://werc.homelinux.net/contact/>
> )
>
>


--
I'm migrating my email.  plalonde@telus.net will soon be disconnected.
 Please use paul.a.lalonde@gmail.com from now on.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2072 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[Balwinder S Dheeman]

On 10/09/2011 08:04 AM, Russ Cox wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 8:02 PM, L N<leonardnemoi@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> Anyone know the state of the art of writing 9p clients/servers in tcl?
>
> I believe the state of the art is not to use tcl.  :-)
> I'm having fun writing 9p clients in Go.

IMHO, That Go or Go-language thingy seems to be an overkill to me for
that matter; that's just an opinion and opinions may differ.

The best portable and efficient intermediate level language is C and I
hope it will remain a 'lingua franca' for computer programmers for years
to come ;)

--
Balwinder S "bdheeman" Dheeman
(http://werc.homelinux.net/contact/)

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[Nick LaForge]

> wut

http://movie.subtitlr.com/subtitle/show/94536#line121

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[simon softnet]

wut

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 3:12 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> On Sun Oct  9 02:16:11 EDT 2011, pmarin.mail@gmail.com wrote:
>> In 15 years Tcl has been improved a lot, like any other  language.
>
> that might not be relevant to ron's point.  i think this is almost
> a geometry problem.  if you plot languages in 1997 and late 2011 on the
> "goodness line", it should follow that improving isn't enough to have
> a sufficiently large "goodness factor".  the language in question has to
> be improving fast enough relative to the competition to be in the top
> bunch (largest x).  if you only plot languages similar to tcl on this line,
> i think you get the same result.
>
> in tcl's case, the segment between starting point and today would seem
> to need to be prohibitively long.  (although python made the minimum
> segment length much shorter by making python 3 incompatable with 2.)
>
> - erik
>
>

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[erik quanstrom]

On Sun Oct  9 02:16:11 EDT 2011, pmarin.mail@gmail.com wrote:
> In 15 years Tcl has been improved a lot, like any other  language.

that might not be relevant to ron's point.  i think this is almost
a geometry problem.  if you plot languages in 1997 and late 2011 on the
"goodness line", it should follow that improving isn't enough to have
a sufficiently large "goodness factor".  the language in question has to
be improving fast enough relative to the competition to be in the top
bunch (largest x).  if you only plot languages similar to tcl on this line,
i think you get the same result.

in tcl's case, the segment between starting point and today would seem
to need to be prohibitively long.  (although python made the minimum
segment length much shorter by making python 3 incompatable with 2.)

- erik

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[pmarin]

In 15 years Tcl has been improved a lot, like any other  language.

On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 7:21 AM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, I did 9p clients for testing 15 years ago. It might have been
> the right thing then; I was even making nfs clients in tcl back then.
>
> Would I do it again?
>
> No
>
> ron
>
>

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[ron minnich]

Well, I did 9p clients for testing 15 years ago. It might have been
the right thing then; I was even making nfs clients in tcl back then.

Would I do it again?

No

ron

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[Venkatesh Srinivas]

Hi,

> Also, this is somewhat unrelated, but I was wondering whether each Go
> executable contains the garbage collector.  (It must, it seems, but just
> checking).

It does.

-- vs

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[L N]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 775 bytes --]

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Russ Cox <rsc@swtch.com> wrote:

> I believe the state of the art is not to use tcl.  :-)
> I'm having fun writing 9p clients in Go.
>
> Russ
>

Sure, tcl isn't as popular as Go right now.

Still, tcl is appealing in some ways.

http://www.tcl.tk/doc/scripting.html

Was wondering if Go could be summarized as Plan 9 in language-space.

(Ready... aim... fire)

It seems like Plan 9 already "got it right" in the systems realm.

(Arguments against Ousterhout's dichotomy, fire away)

Seems like Plan 9 and tcl/tk would complement each other well.

Also, this is somewhat unrelated, but I was wondering whether each Go
executable contains the garbage collector.  (It must, it seems, but just
checking).

 - Leonard

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1214 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] tcl, 9p

[Russ Cox]

On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 8:02 PM, L N <leonardnemoi@gmail.com> wrote:
> Anyone know the state of the art of writing 9p clients/servers in tcl?

I believe the state of the art is not to use tcl.  :-)
I'm having fun writing 9p clients in Go.

Russ

[9fans] tcl, 9p

[L N]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 86 bytes --]

Anyone know the state of the art of writing 9p clients/servers in tcl?

 - Leonard

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 102 bytes --]