* NOTE * This page is not about what language is better. This is about what language is best suited for the planned aMSN2.

Language	Pros	Cons
TCL	No need for current aMSN developers to learn a new language	Bindings are generally not available
	Cross-platform	Old and nowadays unpopular language
Python	Active development and large size dev community	Current aMSN developers can not benefit from their experience and therefore may initially write crappy code
	Bindings are available
	Object Oriented
	Cross-platform
	Can reuse existing Telepathy code (cohoba)
Ruby	Active development and medium size dev community	Current aMSN developers can not benefit from their experience and therefore may initially write crappy code
	Bindings are available	Multiple ways to do the same thing (syntactically)
	Object Oriented
	Bridges to both Python and Tcl exist
	Cross-platform

Interesting links and info :
- Eric Raymond's first python experiences
- phd thesis showing Python is faster, smaller and less memory hungry than TCL
- Ruby compared to Python and Perl (it's somewhat biased, but contains a lot of useful info)

Removed:
- The pro and con about Ruby being a hype because together they form are a neutral statement.
- "An advantage of using TCL/TK (cross platform, no compilation) is gone" because it applies not only to Tcl but also to other interpreted languages that they are 'cross-platform' and 'no compilation', and that advantage being gone depends only on bindings availability.
- Weird syntax from Python Con as it was never serious in the first place.
- "We might be able to reuse some aMSN1 code" from TCL pros as Harry points out we can probably not reuse anything in aMSN2

Joined:
- 'Current amsn developer knowledge will be less useful' and 'If people learn a new language, the intial code will probably be crap'. These two are so much related that I thought is was better to join them into 'Current aMSN developers can not benefit from their experience and therefore may initially write crappy code'