Recently somebody asked me, "Why Tcl?" I know it's no use defending.
Over and over again I just can't help but liking it even when I'm not
supposed to.
I keep evaluating other options (sounds tclish) and I invariably get
this kid-like feeling and think, "But it's so much easier with Tcl."
You mean Tcl/Tk was used to create the "moon landing" hoax? :)
No that was done using Cobol and Fotran - the moon thing predates Tcl/Tk/
Tk was used for all those Mars things starting in the mid-90s and later.
--
+--------------------------------+---------------------------------------+
| Gerald W. Lester |
|"The man who fights for his ideals is the man who is alive." - Cervantes|
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Because of the subject of this posting I just had to chime in. Two years
ago I was working with the Mars rovers at JPL. One of the daily tasks
was summarizing the status of each rover based on the telemetry from the
previous day. The data were from half a dozen or so different
subsystems, in similar but different directory structures.
To simplify the data collection and presentation, I wrote a Tcl/Tk
script in my spare time to pull all the data together. The default
telemetry channels being shown were read from a script, so each analyst
could have his/her own version, and the defaults could be overridden at
run time.
The coding was fun, and the tool was useful.
I heartily echo the "Thanks!"
Gerry
Isn't the only proper answer to this one: Why not?
I mean: let them explain why one should not use Tcl/Tk for a
particular
job. That will give you ample arguments as to why Tcl/Tk is just
perfect for it (or much more fun than anything else)
Regards,
Arjen