begin quoting Lan Barnes as of Fri, Oct 26, 2007 at 07:12:00PM -0700: > On Fri, October 26, 2007 6:46 pm, Andrew Lentvorski wrote: [snip] > > No, there isn't always an easier/different way. This is part of the > > reason why I don't bother to examine Tcl more. I saw this tendency in > > the Tcl bunch back at 8.0, "If we don't have it, you don't need it." > > > > That's fine. But if I need it, and you don't have it, I ain't gonna use > > your bloody language.
Beware those languages that have everything. > I think you're being a little harsh. It has threads. What they're saying > is, if you _think_ you need threads, you probably don't. This may not be > true of you but may still be true in the main. This might be a reflection more on the usablility of TCL threads than of the concept of threads (or other concurrency mechanisms). "We have it, but it's not really a very good mechanism, so do it some other way." I liked SR. Never really needed its features in the real world. -- I wonder if Java-style synchronization blocks have been done in TCL. Stewart Stremler -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
