Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Scripting languages for desktop apps on OS X: Why not?

49 views
Skip to first unread message

Kevin Walzer

unread,
May 11, 2012, 8:28:20 PM5/11/12
to
I've posted a rant/strong defense about scripting languages being
suitable for desktop application development, and talk a lot about using
Tcl for app development:

http://www.codebykevin.com/blosxom.cgi/2012/05/11#why-scripting-languages

Hope this is illuminating.
--
Kevin Walzer
Code by Kevin
http://www.codebykevin.com

Gerald W. Lester

unread,
May 12, 2012, 12:33:08 AM5/12/12
to
On 5/11/12 7:28 PM, Kevin Walzer wrote:
> I've posted a rant/strong defense about scripting languages being suitable
> for desktop application development, and talk a lot about using Tcl for app
> development:
>
> http://www.codebykevin.com/blosxom.cgi/2012/05/11#why-scripting-languages
>
> Hope this is illuminating.

Kevin,

One argument often made is that since scripting languages are not compiled,
people can steal/modify your code so they are not suitable for commercial
products. Now we know this is not true and can be overcome via a couple of
routes, but IMHO you should address it in your post.

Also, his not getting responses via twitter mean they don't exist -- come
on, talk about selecting your audience (I've never used twitter, nor does
anyone in my family).

Overall a very good post.

--
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Gerald W. Lester, President, KNG Consulting LLC |
| Email: Gerald...@kng-consulting.net |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Kevin Walzer

unread,
May 13, 2012, 5:00:52 PM5/13/12
to
On 5/12/12 12:33 AM, Gerald W. Lester wrote:
> One argument often made is that since scripting languages are not
> compiled, people can steal/modify your code so they are not suitable for
> commercial products. Now we know this is not true and can be overcome
> via a couple of routes, but IMHO you should address it in your post.

I acknowledge that point, but it's not what he was talking about, which
is why I didn't address it.
0 new messages