Re: how to move to 8.4?
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 01:39:08 -0700
"Jeff Hobbs" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:3FB31504.email@example.com...
> If you want a bit more stability, you can start with ActiveTcl and
> just add the extensions that are missing (although we do not
> have an IRIX distro).
One of the best things about TCL historically has been it's
portability and lack of politics or OS focus. Why does
Activestate take these open scripting languages
and build on them (binaries, IDEs etc) in ways that
zoom in on a few operating systems. Is it really
necessary for all the whiz bang stuff to move away
from portability? I find that a bit troubling.
What up G? :)
(BSD/SunOS/AIX/OSX fan here)
- Re: OpenGL extensions in Linux (Its not hard?)
... I have found OpenGL extensions to be ... no "portability" problem when using different Linux distros. ...
- Re: c compiler?
... Keith Thompson a écrit: ... non-standard extensions are disabled? ... it could be a very useful tool for writing portable ... Portability is maybe nice but usability is maybe better. ...
- Re: portability: static vs. shared?
... Well I don't know about portability. ... Basically, dynamic linking is a space-speed tradeoff, where speed is ... good for extensible languages (like Perl), ... each set of extensions used together would require a perl ...
- Re: pascal equivalent of python "sleep"
... That is a dialect question, not portability. ... extensions are often just that, ... You point to few original sources or own research for that conclusion. ...
- Re: how to move to 8.4?
... > portability and lack of politics or OS focus. ... so probably if you express your interest with $$$ ActiveState ... will create a distro for OS X... ... extensions ported to them, OS X follows up with nice things etc. etc. ...