> Now, if adding other scripting language support could be done without > adding any baggage to the core -- as external modules -- I'm all for it. > However, I would hate to see the core get bogged down with stuff to > accomdate all sorts of languages if it means negative impact towards its > ability to fit the niche I just described.
I wouldn't think that it would bog down the core if done right. Perhaps a few extra hooks, but not many. Note that tclperl and tclpython both exist and could assist in this respect (although we already have the python integration). > My personal self-interest comes from developing a site in Vignette's > application server product (which, up to version V/6, uses Tcl as its > core scripting language). The site across the two major applications > I've developed does approx. 1.4M hits/350K page views a day. Not a hell > of a lot, but it's a respectable amount and scaling it up will be > important. > > As of Vignette V/7, it appears they're dropping Tcl support in the core. > It's the moment I've always been waiting for. I'm ready to evangelize > AOLserver full-time as a low-impact migration path from Vignette. If I > can get AOLserver to "emulate" Vignette well enough, I can start going > around to every Vignette customer and try and sell them an AOLserver > replacement implementation. This could be /big/ money. And, it's the > niche that AOLserver specifically fits well -- high end, dynamic > websites. Ah ... Vignette. If I could find the people responsible for the original design of the Vignette/Tcl integration, I would give them a good smack in the head. I'd put good money on the bet that one of them was a COBOL or like language user. If you look at the implementation, you'll see what I mean. All-caps commands? set and SET command that mean different things? Come on. They also didn't understand Tcl when they made the integration. Scriptics supported them, but they were always so closed about sharing their internal integration layer that it made things very difficult. Ugh! Jeff
