Re: Perl vs Scheme vs ML vs ... for autoconf

[Paul Eggert]

> Cc: address@hidden
> From: Akim Demaille <address@hidden>
> Date: 10 Apr 2001 19:03:14 +0200
> User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) XEmacs/21.1 (Cuyahoga Valley)
> 
> >>>>> "Paul" == Paul Eggert <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> Paul> Scheme by far is the best choice for this kind of application,
> Paul> because it's best at programs that generate other programs.  The
> Paul> other languages mentioned are not even close.
> 
> I think there is some confusion here: I never considered moving from M4.

Oh.  Sorry, I was indeed confused.  (But perhaps you should consider
moving from M4 anyway.  :-)

> All I'm looking for is a decent language for the driver, i.e.,
> rewrite autoconf.sh into something better than sh.

For that application, I'm not entirely convinced that it's worth the
hassle to switch.  But it's not a big deal, and if you think something
else would be better, it's fine with me.

You might use it as an excuse to learn Scheme anyway, as it's perhaps
the most plausible replacement for m4.

A couple of years ago I taught a programming-languages class at UCLA.
The first two languages I covered were M4 and Scheme.  There were
interesting analogies between the two, though of course Scheme is much
more advanced.