tcljava-user

[tcljava-user] Reasons for using JACL?

[Patrick F. <pfi...@oz...>]

It seems to me that the primary purpose of JACL is to allow java programmers 
write procedural non object orientated code that will run under a JVM and 
perhaps allow non java programmers to access or administer the application 
through a simple script interface .  Are there any other reasons why Java 
programmers would embed JACL or indeed Jython in a Java application rather 
then writing everything in pure Java?

Re: [tcljava-user] Reasons for using JACL?

[Kristoffer L. <se...@fi...>]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Patrick Finnegan wrote:

> It seems to me that the primary purpose of JACL is to allow java programmers
> write procedural non object orientated code that will run under a JVM and
> perhaps allow non java programmers to access or administer the application
> through a simple script interface .  Are there any other reasons why Java
> programmers would embed JACL or indeed Jython in a Java application rather
> then writing everything in pure Java?

I've used it in the traditional good scripting manner. Ie. I have a core 
written in Java which is then scripted via some Jacl scripts.

Pure Java is quite simply inferior when it comes to writing tests or for 
dynamic stuff from the CLI or whatever. In fact, Java is inferior to Tcl 
for the core stuff as well, but I have no say in that matter.

                               / http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/

Re: [tcljava-user] Reasons for using JACL?

[Tom P. <tpo...@ny...>]

On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 09:11:52PM +0200, Kristoffer Lawson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
> 
> > It seems to me that the primary purpose of JACL is to allow java programmers
> > write procedural non object orientated code that will run under a JVM and
> > perhaps allow non java programmers to access or administer the application
> > through a simple script interface .  Are there any other reasons why Java
> > programmers would embed JACL or indeed Jython in a Java application rather
> > then writing everything in pure Java?
> 
> I've used it in the traditional good scripting manner. Ie. I have a core 
> written in Java which is then scripted via some Jacl scripts.
> 
> Pure Java is quite simply inferior when it comes to writing tests or for 
> dynamic stuff from the CLI or whatever. In fact, Java is inferior to Tcl 
> for the core stuff as well, but I have no say in that matter.
> 


I think you could apply most of the same reasons why one woud use Tcl/C
instead of pure C.  Write less code.

My use of Jacl is inverted from Patrick's use: I use Jacl driving Java objects.  
Most of my Jacl usage is:
    Prototyping, 
    Integration and unit testing  (JUnit is simply the wrong approach, IMHO)
    Lightweight applications
    Administrative tasks in larger applications
    More to come in the next few weeks, watch this space.

-- 
Tom Poindexter
tpo...@ny...

Re: [tcljava-user] Reasons for using JACL?

[Bruce J. <nm...@ma...>]

I'll be releasing a new version of Swank shortly (sort of Tk for  
Jacl), which allows one to create scripted Java GUIs.  I find Jacl/ 
Swank very useful for building applications with Java code underneath  
for the high performance parts (though with Mo DeJong's TJC, the  
performance of Jacl itself is gettting quite good).

Bruce




On Nov 27, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Tom Poindexter wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 09:11:52PM +0200, Kristoffer Lawson wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Patrick Finnegan wrote:
>>
>>> It seems to me that the primary purpose of JACL is to allow java  
>>> programmers
>>> write procedural non object orientated code that will run under a  
>>> JVM and
>>> perhaps allow non java programmers to access or administer the  
>>> application
>>> through a simple script interface .  Are there any other reasons  
>>> why Java
>>> programmers would embed JACL or indeed Jython in a Java  
>>> application rather
>>> then writing everything in pure Java?
>>
>> I've used it in the traditional good scripting manner. Ie. I have  
>> a core
>> written in Java which is then scripted via some Jacl scripts.
>>
>> Pure Java is quite simply inferior when it comes to writing tests  
>> or for
>> dynamic stuff from the CLI or whatever. In fact, Java is inferior  
>> to Tcl
>> for the core stuff as well, but I have no say in that matter.
>>
>
>
> I think you could apply most of the same reasons why one woud use  
> Tcl/C
> instead of pure C.  Write less code.
>
> My use of Jacl is inverted from Patrick's use: I use Jacl driving  
> Java objects.
> Most of my Jacl usage is:
>     Prototyping,
>     Integration and unit testing  (JUnit is simply the wrong  
> approach, IMHO)
>     Lightweight applications
>     Administrative tasks in larger applications
>     More to come in the next few weeks, watch this space.
>
> -- 
> Tom Poindexter
> tpo...@ny...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> ---
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to  
> share your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php? 
> page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> tcljava-user mailing list
> tcl...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tcljava-user

Re: [tcljava-user] Reasons for using JACL?

[Scott S. <ss...@am...>]

Patrick Finnegan wrote:
> It seems to me that the primary purpose of JACL is to allow java programmers 
> write procedural non object orientated code that will run under a JVM and 
> perhaps allow non java programmers to access or administer the application 
> through a simple script interface .  Are there any other reasons why Java 
> programmers would embed JACL or indeed Jython in a Java application rather 
> then writing everything in pure Java?
>   

You've got some good answers already, but I'll throw ours in. 

In the chip design business many vendors use Tcl to control their 
software, so many chip designers know Tcl.  We have some considerable 
in-house software that we have written in Java that we would like to 
expose for use with Tcl, so we use TclBlend.  We also pass stuff back 
and forth, as we have both Java and Tcl programmers.  We could just as 
easily use JACL instead, but users might have issues controlling other 
vendor software (C/C++) from JACL.  There was also some thought of 
pulling our in-house tool into 3rd party vendor tools in a slick way by 
pulling it in "their" Tcl interpreter.  (we might have to use some 
master/slave interpreter setup though)

Kristoffer Lawson said: "Pure Java is quite simply inferior when it 
comes to writing tests or for dynamic stuff from the CLI or whatever. In 
fact, Java is inferior to Tcl for the core stuff as well, but I have no 
say in that matter."

I'll take the otherside: "Tcl is simply inferior when it comes to core 
stuff, it's a mess.  In fact, Tcl is inferior to Java (with BeanShell) 
for the scripting stuff as well, but I have no say in that matter."  ;)

That said...  TclBlend/Jacl saved our 3-4 man project from being 
implemented in C++... Which would NOT have solved any problems and would 
have taken a 2x productivity hit.  For that - I am grateful for Mo's 
work (and the others involved).

Thanks,
Scott

Re: [tcljava-user] Reasons for using JACL?

[Kristoffer L. <se...@fi...>]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Scott Serr wrote:

> Kristoffer Lawson said: "Pure Java is quite simply inferior when it
> comes to writing tests or for dynamic stuff from the CLI or whatever. In
> fact, Java is inferior to Tcl for the core stuff as well, but I have no
> say in that matter."
>
> I'll take the otherside: "Tcl is simply inferior when it comes to core
> stuff, it's a mess.  In fact, Tcl is inferior to Java (with BeanShell)
> for the scripting stuff as well, but I have no say in that matter."  ;)

You're probably the first person I know to claim that. Personally most 
projects I have in Java would've been done much quicker in Tcl. Protocols, 
parameter mappings. Well, most stuff. Tcl is one of the cleanest languages 
out there (along with Lisp-variants), so I don't see how one can claim it 
to be a mess?


                               / http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/

Re: [tcljava-user] Reasons for using JACL?

[Scott S. <ss...@am...>]

On 11/28/06 06:35, Kristoffer Lawson wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2006, Scott Serr wrote:
>> Kristoffer Lawson said: "Pure Java is quite simply inferior when it
>> comes to writing tests or for dynamic stuff from the CLI or whatever. In
>> fact, Java is inferior to Tcl for the core stuff as well, but I have no
>> say in that matter."
>>
>> I'll take the otherside: "Tcl is simply inferior when it comes to core
>> stuff, it's a mess. In fact, Tcl is inferior to Java (with BeanShell)
>> for the scripting stuff as well, but I have no say in that matter." ;)
>
> You're probably the first person I know to claim that. Personally most
> projects I have in Java would've been done much quicker in Tcl.
> Protocols,
> parameter mappings. Well, most stuff. Tcl is one of the cleanest
> languages
> out there (along with Lisp-variants), so I don't see how one can claim it
> to be a mess?
>
> / http://www.fishpool.com/~setok/

Everybody has their preferences and I surely don't want to start a big
thread on Tcl vs Java.  But I will say this... 

Some people prefer dynamic languages - languages where you can redefine
what "if" does.  And where "#" comments behave like commands:
proc a {} {
  # comment with unbalanced }
}
Dies.

Some people like strongly typed languages.  I know... "Strongly typed
languages are for people with weak minds/memories."  Also a compiler
that *says* what line number it encountered an error on seems like a
good thing.

I guess what I'm saying is Tcl's grammar is clean and simple, but that
doesn't necessarily translate to a good experience for the programmer. 
I have no doubt that you have mastered Tcl further than I have mastered
any language.  When you get to that point though you know what to avoid.

-Scott