5 ms·
Tcl programs are still far easier to distribute (using Tclkit & Starkits / Starpacks) than for Python, which as far as I can tell requires either an installer o
by sea6ear 11y ago
Tcl programs are still far easier to distribute (using Tclkit & Starkits / Starpacks) than for Python, which as far as I can tell requires either an installer or the end user to install a distribution of Python.
This one capability puts Tcl in a class that is fairly unique among scripting languages. It gets it into the class of easily distributable languages that usually only includes compiled native binaries like Go, C, C++, Haskell, Ocaml, etc
EDIT: Thinking further, perhaps Node compiled statically and Lua may offer similar capabilities to Tcl in terms of being reasonably distributable. Maybe PHP also if you distribute the static cgi binary.
I guess it's mostly Python, Ruby, Java, C# and Perl that require a distribution to be installed for programs to be easily run. This is mostly a problem for distributing one-off utilities for someone else to run rather than either major applications where an installer wouldn't be comparatively a lot of extra work, or situations where the computers are all under the programmers control.
- maxerickson 11y agoPerl and python both have wrapper style single exe packaging options. I guess they might not be easy on the dev side, but they are transparent to the end user.