Looking for balanced critique of Perl

[Peter da Silva]

In article <7825 at ncar.ucar.edu> cruff at handies.UCAR.EDU (Craig Ruff) writes:
> In article <SUA45BF at xds13.ferranti.com> peter at ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> >One thing I have found useful is John Ousterhout's TCL: Tool Command
> >Language. ...

> I used TCL as part of a library on a project, and it turned out to be useful.
> However, I would have liked to use a subroutine callable version of perl
> instead! Then I wouldn't have had to add all sorts of additional functions
> to TCL.

Yes, TCL is sort of short in the subroutines department, but I think it makes
a better extension language than, say, perl (or REXX, for that matter) because
it's such a clean language... like a cross between lisp and awk. This makes
it relatively easy to operate on programs as data... something I'd hate to
have to do with (say) an algol-like language.

I think I'd really prefer a postscript core to the language. Anyone know how
to get hold of the author of the Gosling postscript? He doesn't seem to be
the Emacs Gosling, and the address in the docco is defunct.
-- 
Peter da Silva.   `-_-'
+1 713 274 5180.
<peter at ficc.ferranti.com>