Is there any plan Tcl.NET for Microsoft Visual Studio.NET?
Satoshi Imai
Is there any plan of Tcl.NET for Microsoft Visual Studio.NET?
Or does Tcl die? :-)
---------
Satoshi Imai
David Gravereaux
>Hello.
>
>Is there any plan of Tcl.NET for Microsoft Visual Studio.NET?
Code one up and submit it as a patch. I'm perfectly happy to use the C header
file and link normally. Same for my use of perl, python and the jni aspect of
java. What's special about .NET anyways? I do like GDI+, but not much more.
What am I missing? It still looks like pcode, to me, but more pliable and still
without an eval.
>Or does Tcl die? :-)
I'm not laughing or smiling back. If .NET is the future, burn your Sparc
workstations and fdisk your Linux partitions... There's room for everyone, ya
know.
--
David Gravereaux <davy...@pobox.com>
[species: human; planet: earth,milkyway,alpha sector]
Please be aware of the 7.5 year ping times when placing a call from alpha centari
Satoshi Imai
> Code one up and submit it as a patch. I'm perfectly happy to use the C header
> file and link normally. Same for my use of perl, python and the jni aspect of
> java. What's special about .NET anyways? I do like GDI+, but not much more.
> What am I missing? It still looks like pcode, to me, but more pliable and still
> without an eval.
Maybe I'm only interested in .NET.
However, it will become uneasy if the following lists are seen.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/vstudio/partners/language/default.asp
David Gravereaux
Development of a managed code module for Tcl will have to be done by someone.
Contact je...@activestate.com and strike up a conversation about your desire for
.NET compliance.
Donal K. Fellows
> Is there any plan of Tcl.NET for Microsoft Visual Studio.NET?
I'm not aware of any. If anyone want's to work on it, feel free. It is a
problem that is analogous (at least in the initial stages) to porting to Parrot,
in case anyone's interested.
> Or does Tcl die? :-)
*snort* It'll continue to live for at least as long as I'm interested in it.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ fell...@cs.man.ac.uk
"[E]ven now, wars are fought and lost, people are killed and unkilled, toilet
rolls are used and unused, pants are derwear and underwear, all because
of the delicious velvety substance that is Marmite." -- Nathan Weston
Satoshi Imai
> > Or does Tcl die? :-)
>
> *snort* It'll continue to live for at least as long as I'm interested in it.
>
> Donal.
I'm sorry about that. I hope not.
I like Tcl very much.
I only felt only a few uneasy to the future of Tcl.
----------
Satoshi Imai
Jacob Levy
already has very capable SOAP and XML-RPC support thanks to Pat Thoyts
work. Thats really all that's needed to be able to talk the ".NET"
lingo.
There *is* some work on the part of ActiveState to fix the perception
and get us on the list of languages supporting ".NET" on M$'s site.
--JYL
"Donal K. Fellows" <fell...@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<3C73807B...@cs.man.ac.uk>...
Joe English
>"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>> > Or does Tcl die? :-)
>> *snort* It'll continue to live for at least as long as I'm interested in it.
>>
>> Donal.
>
>I'm sorry about that. I hope not.
>I like Tcl very much.
>I only felt only a few uneasy to the future of Tcl.
Well, in one or two years .NET will be available
"everywhere" -- Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows ME,
and _maybe_ Windows 98 (but probably not).
In two or three years, the GNOME project's MONO might
be available for Linux, the BSDs, and other popular
Unix variants.
In the meantime, Tcl will still be around for all of
those platforms and then some.
(Is it still the case that Tcl has been ported to more
platforms than "write-once run-anywhere" Java? It was
the last time I checked.)
--Joe English
Jeffrey Hobbs
Being at ActiveState, and seeing AS as the Perl and Python .NET
partners, I know what MS means on that page. Those aren't all
languages that can compile to .NET bytecode - those are languages
that work with their new Visual Studio .NET IDE (think Eclipse,
a pluggable IDE). ActiveState also did some work on creating a
true Perl.NET component, but that was never finished. A Python
version was also attempted, but is at a more unfinished state
(read: nothing worth using).
That said, it is possible to do - both the Visual Studio .NET
plugin of the true .NET CLR component. All it needs is enough
customer interest to be completed.
BTW, if you think .NET compliance is necessary for a language to
survive in the short or medium term, you've had a bit too much of
Microsoft's koolaid (and I've seen plenty of it to know).
--
Jeff Hobbs The Tcl Guy
Senior Developer http://www.ActiveState.com/
Tcl Support and Productivity Solutions
Cameron Laird
.
.
Microsoft spends hundreds of millions, and perhaps billions,
to inspire that thirst.
Microsoft's not alone, of course. Oracle, Sun, ..., do the
same, when they see an opportunity. Let's be precise: these
organizations pay people full time to manipulate confusion
about such distinctions as "Web Services-capable", ".NET-ready",
".NET-compatible", "standards-compliant", ".NET-compatible",
...
It's worth little time arguing about these things. A MAJORITY
of the conversations I have WITH INDUSTRY INSIDERS about "Web
Services", "themes", "desktop standards", ... and so on are
NOT about those things in any engineering sense. They're pure
exercises in branding. Tcl can NEVER win on those grounds.
Let's get back to coding.
For homework, see joelonsoftware. See <URL: http://
groups.google.com/groups?th=afc1dacea1b7af57 >.
--
Cameron Laird <Cam...@Lairds.com>
Business: http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal: http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
lvi...@yahoo.com
According to Satoshi Imai <s-i...@japan.interq.or.jp>:
:Is there any plan of Tcl.NET for Microsoft Visual Studio.NET?
:Or does Tcl die? :-)
Perhaps it will be the other way - .NET will die and Tcl will live eternally.
--
"I know of vanishingly few people ... who choose to use ksh." "I'm a minority!"
<URL: mailto:lvi...@cas.org> <URL: http://www.purl.org/NET/lvirden/>
Even if explicitly stated to the contrary, nothing in this posting
should be construed as representing my employer's opinions.
Darren New
> I only felt only a few uneasy to the future of Tcl.
That's Microsoft's intent: to make you feel uneasy about anything they
don't endorse. Think of it as cover fire -- Microsoft firing bullets
over your head so you can't look up to shoot back. ;-)
--
Darren New
San Diego, CA, USA (PST). Cryptokeys on demand.
To the user, everything works just as expected,
assuming the user's expectations are correct.
Laurent Duperval
> Satoshi Imai wrote:
>> I only felt only a few uneasy to the future of Tcl.
>
> That's Microsoft's intent: to make you feel uneasy about anything they
> don't endorse. Think of it as cover fire -- Microsoft firing bullets
> over your head so you can't look up to shoot back. ;-)
>
Documented as such here:
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html
Here's an extract, which is very pertinent to this discussion:
Think of the history of data access strategies to come out of Microsoft.
ODBC, RDO, DAO, ADO, OLEDB, now ADO.NET - All New! Are these technological
imperatives? The result of an incompetent design group that needs to reinvent
data access every goddamn year? (That's probably it, actually.) But the end
result is just cover fire. The competition has no choice but to spend all
their time porting and keeping up, time that they can't spend writing new
features. Look closely at the software landscape. The companies that do well
are the ones who rely least on big companies and don't have to spend all their
cycles catching up and reimplementing and fixing bugs that crop up only on
Windows XP. The companies who stumble are the ones who spend too much time
reading tea leaves to figure out the future direction of Microsoft. People
get worried about .NET and decide to rewrite their whole architecture for .NET
because they think they have to. Microsoft is shooting at you, and it's just
cover fire so that they can move forward and you can't, because this is how
the game is played, Bubby. Are you going to support Hailstorm? SOAP? RDF?
Are you supporting it because your customers need it, or because someone is
firing at you and you feel like you have to respond? The sales teams of the
big companies understand cover fire. They go into their customers and say,
"OK, you don't have to buy from us. Buy from the best vendor. But make sure
that you get a product that supports (XML / SOAP / CDE / J2EE) because
otherwise you'll be Locked In The Trunk." Then when the little companies try
to sell into that account, all they hear is obedient CTOs parrotting "Do you
have J2EE?" And they have to waste all their time building in J2EE even if it
doesn't really make any sales, and gives them no opportunity to distinguish
themselves. It's a checkbox feature -- you do it because you need the
checkbox saying you have it, but nobody will use it or needs it. And it's
cover fire.
L
--
Laurent Duperval <mailto:laurent....@masq.ca>
Why is it that when you transport something by car, it's called a
shipment, but when you transport something by ship, it's called cargo?
Chang Li
> Well, in one or two years .NET will be available
> "everywhere" -- Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows ME,
> and _maybe_ Windows 98 (but probably not).
>
Windows is not everywhere!
> In two or three years, the GNOME project's MONO might
> be available for Linux, the BSDs, and other popular
> Unix variants.
This is a hype project.
> In the meantime, Tcl will still be around for all of
> those platforms and then some.
Although Tcl is not the must be it works for its speciality.
Chang
Donal K. Fellows
> BTW, if you think .NET compliance is necessary for a language to
> survive in the short or medium term, you've had a bit too much of
> Microsoft's koolaid (and I've seen plenty of it to know).
So .NET is Microsoft's answer to Sunny Delight; looks great in the packaging to
get everyone to buy it, but don't look at the ingredients or you'll find out how
fundamentally unwholesome it is.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ fell...@cs.man.ac.uk
-- The guy who sells me my audio hardware explained that a computer will never
produce the same level of sound quality that a stereo will b/c stereo have
transistors and sound cards don't. --Matthew Garson <mga...@world.std.com>
Donal K. Fellows
> Documented as such here:
> http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html
The rest of the article is good too; some days it's just hard to do *anything*
useful at all.
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ fell...@cs.man.ac.uk
Cameron Laird
Donal K. Fellows <fell...@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
.
.
.
>So .NET is Microsoft's answer to Sunny Delight; looks great in the packaging to
>get everyone to buy it, but don't look at the ingredients or you'll find out how
>fundamentally unwholesome it is.
.
.
Donal, this is too much, and too little.
We're picking on Microsoft, and, at least for me,
that's a distraction from productive work. On
the other hand, .NET is no innovation in its Sunny
Delightness; in fact, it's a relatively progressive
move, in the regard that .NET probably will *do*
something some day (there are a few other technical
specifics to .NET we'll ignore for today). Micro-
soft is a mass-marketer. Its fundamental method is
to shout loudly about appearances, frequently
before it has *any* technology to sell, let alone
a wholesome one.
Microsoft treats IT managers the way Proctor &
Gamble treats nine-year-old prospective consumers:
lots of noise, bright colors, and jumping around.
Other software vendors just wish they could be so
successful.
Just say no. These are not your friends.
Bob Techentin
> Just want to point out that ".NET compliant" is a marketing term. Tcl
> already has very capable SOAP and XML-RPC support thanks to Pat Thoyts
> work. Thats really all that's needed to be able to talk the ".NET"
> lingo.
>
> There *is* some work on the part of ActiveState to fix the perception
> and get us on the list of languages supporting ".NET" on M$'s site.
Need a little counter cover fire.
Tcl is already interNET compliant, which is a superset of .NET anyway.
That's the technical case.
And if you get in to an argument with the PHBs, you can always ask them
if they are going to personally vouch for the company's DMCA compliance
to the Microsoft EULA. Or has corporate legal reviewed the litigation
exposure risks? I sure would hate to be responsible for an FBI raid
confiscating all the company's computers. If that kind of cover fire
doesn't get them ducking and running, then you might not really have a
PHB after all.
Bob
--
Bob Techentin techenti...@mayo.edu
Mayo Foundation (507) 538-5495
200 First St. SW FAX (507) 284-9171
Rochester MN, 55901 USA http://www.mayo.edu/sppdg/
Donal K. Fellows
> Donal K. Fellows <fell...@cs.man.ac.uk> wrote:
>> So .NET is Microsoft's answer to Sunny Delight; looks great in the
>> packaging to get everyone to buy it, but don't look at the ingredients
>> or you'll find out how fundamentally unwholesome it is.
I have a tendency to prefer a quick aphorism to something more reasoned. Maybe
it's a character flaw...
> Microsoft treats IT managers the way Proctor &
> Gamble treats nine-year-old prospective consumers:
> lots of noise, bright colors, and jumping around.
> Other software vendors just wish they could be so
> successful.
>
> Just say no. These are not your friends.
I prefer not to wait for them to finish their sales pitch. Why bother saying
"no" when you can start ignoring them much earlier?
Cameron Laird
Laurent Duperval <laurent....@masq.ca> wrote:
.
.
.
.
.
For a current example, see <URL:
http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s%253D701%2526a%253D22553,00.asp >
Talk about SQL, file systems, and such would seem to suggest technical
content. 'Near as I can tell, though, there is none. Zero. As 'near
as I can tell ... sorry; I don't know how to finish that sentence
without using language I'm likely to regret.
Most trade magazines are a waste of time. That's a safe enough claim.
Donal K. Fellows
> For a current example, see <URL:
> http://www.eweek.com/article/0,3658,s%253D701%2526a%253D22553,00.asp >
> Talk about SQL, file systems, and such would seem to suggest technical
> content. 'Near as I can tell, though, there is none. Zero. As 'near
> as I can tell ... sorry; I don't know how to finish that sentence
> without using language I'm likely to regret.
>
> Most trade magazines are a waste of time. That's a safe enough claim.
SELECT crap FROM microsoft WHERE content = 0 AND buzzwords LIKE "sql"
(Cynical? Moi?)
Donal.
--
Donal K. Fellows http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~fellowsd/ fell...@cs.man.ac.uk
-- If that's dead, sign me up for necrophilia classes.
-- Mark Loy <ml...@iupui.edu>
Nicolas Boretos
We recently submitted a pre-proposal for a Ministry detailing a
distributed system for inputing, accessing and reporting on national/EU
trade statistics(kind of a EuroStat). We recommended SOAP,XML and the
likes. The CTO in charge requested as to use something more current like
a ".NET" architecture.
You figure it out????
nicolas boretos
Cameron Laird
Nicolas Boretos <nico...@mail.maich.gr> wrote:
>Can't help but chime in here 'bout "Perceived Technology".
>
>We recently submitted a pre-proposal for a Ministry detailing a
>distributed system for inputing, accessing and reporting on national/EU
>trade statistics(kind of a EuroStat). We recommended SOAP,XML and the
>likes. The CTO in charge requested as to use something more current like
>a ".NET" architecture.
>
>You figure it out????
.
.
Smile and nod.
Really. Say, "yes, absolutely", get a commitment that
that's what he wants, then implement what you know is
right, then glue some glitter on at the end.
Kevin Kenny
> Most trade magazines are a waste of time. That's a safe enough claim.
Well, nobody reads them for the editorial content. The ads are a fair
(and only fair, I concede) place to start comparison shopping if you're
out to buy something.
Also, once in a while one or another trade rag carries a piece with
Cameron's by-line, so they can't be all bad.
--
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin