| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
languages vs librarieslanguages vs librariesPosted Jun 24, 2004 14:44 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252)In reply to: languages vs libraries by davidw Parent article: The New Age of Programming
That's one of the things I really like about Tcl - a very simple core, with an extremely flexible syntax (control structures, for instance, are regular commmands) This may be so but when I see "simple core, flexible syntax" but no compatibility between versions (in any direction), no support for number of packages on new versions and no support for number of packages on old versions "disaster" is the only thing that comes to my mind. Try to find Debian's discussion on TCL and you'll see that it's even worse then Perl in this regard...
(Log in to post comments)
languages vs libraries Posted Jun 24, 2004 16:21 UTC (Thu) by davidw (subscriber, #947) [Link] This is FUD. You may not like Tcl, but please stick to the facts. Tcl is quite backwards compatible, supports binary packages through several versions without recompiling, and has zillions of packages for it.Tcl's big problem is that it is no longer cool, and so people like to rag on it. Not that it doesn't have defects, but they aren't the ones you listed, - you appear to just be repeating something you read second hand.
|
|||||||||||