Why Tcl/Tk is evil (was: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT) 
Author Message
 Why Tcl/Tk is evil (was: Re: Linux/Unix versus NT)


> Tcl/Tk is evil sent on Unix by the devil. Just kidding, (I am
> an atheist) but please read on...

> As far as I remember, Tcl/Tk was created as a prototyping tool.
> for some temporary designs later to be re-written.

You post a note to several newsgroups, with an incendiary, absolutist
thesis, and your argument is based on an uncertain memory?  Bah.

Your memory is incorrect.  Tcl and Tk can be used as a prototyping
tool, but that was not what they were designed for.

>                                                    But have
> you noticed that Tcl/Tk apps never get re-written in a proper
> manner (with Xlibs or at least Motif)? Prototype never grows into
> anything more solid.

In my experience, Xlib and Motif are *considerably* less solid than Tk.

>                      It's also not memory wise: please consider
> an average user of X environment: He starts X, runs "Xpaint",
> "Seyon", "Xman" and other Xlib/Athena C based apps. They are all
> dynamically compiled: they are thin and fast. Very memory wise.
> Then he (the above mentioned user) starts some Motif app and Motif
> libraries are loaded used (if he can afford Motif of course, otherwise
> he uses statically linked precompiled apps). Then he launches
> some Tkman or TkDesk and Tcl/Tk libraries are loaded. Don't you
> find it is weird to use 3 different set of libraries to perform the
> same basic scrollbar/window/color/whatever manipulation??

Yeah, I do.  But you're not making sense.  What does this have to do
with Tcl/TK being evil?  It sounds as though you're emphasizing the
inadequacy of Xlib and Motif.

>                           No wonder some say that X is
> bloated. No, it's not. All those "easy way out" add-ons
> is what makes it ugly.

If it weren't ugly to begin with, there wouldn't be so many people
trying to build easier ways.  It's just ugly for a different reason
than the one you're talking about.

>                                        With a standard Xlib
> based application written in C or C++, I can in a matter of
> seconds change many individual parameters of an application
> with .Xdefaults or using Editres. You don't need to
> be a programming guru to
> do that, just click with Editres pointer on an application
> and change values of widgets, etc.. But how can I easily
> change boring grey default colors of Tcl/Tk based apps?

Um ... set the resources in .Xdefaults, by chance?

> The bottom line: I consider Tcl/Tk in Unix to be and equivalent of
> VB on Windose.

Equivalent, no.  Vaguely analogous, and a whole lot better, yes.

You are really picking and choosing the "principles" you argue from to
suit your opinion.  Unix makes use of shared memory, but that is not
(and has never been) one of the core principles of Unix, or one of its
distinguishing characteristics.  Also, you seem to think that "solid"
is the same as "memory wise" or "low level".


Sun, 27 Jun 1999 03:00:00 GMT  
 [ 1 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. I am new to programming and am lost

2. Mac C++ programmer who knows Tcl/Tk in MA

3. Review of Tcl and the Tk Toolkit by Ousterhout

4. using a C++ DLL with Tcl/tk 8.0

5. Why am I getting an ExecutionEngineException?

6. Why am I being ignored ???

7. Why am I seeing such a delay between my catch block and my finally block

8. Macro with functions problem -- why am I stupid?

9. Why am I not getting correct position?

10. Why am I getting a segmentation fault?

11. Why am I not intercepting Enter key (VK_RETURN)

12. Why am I getting a General protection Fault?


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software