3 ms·
I don't see why one would choose TCL over LISP-likes which can be made equally as efficient and are very simple to implement and optimize.
by gravypod 10y ago
I don't see why one would choose TCL over LISP-likes which can be made equally as efficient and are very simple to implement and optimize.
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago(((((I can't either))))))
- vanderZwan 10y agoI was seriously confused by your message for a second: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_parentheses
- bitwize 10y agoMismatched parentheses
- nilkn 10y agoI imagine the C-like syntax is part of it. Tcl can be very easy on the eyes (though it can also be very hard on the eyes -- I'm looking at you, expr). It's an extremely down-to-earth language overall. Objectively speaking, though, it seems like you're right -- historically, people have chosen Lisp-like languages over Tcl-like languages, as the latter are now mostly relegated to toy language projects like this one.
- analog31 10y agoIf you're interested, there's a little Lisp interpreter here: http://www.sonoma.edu/users/l/luvisi/sl5.c http://www.sonoma.edu/users/l/luvisi/sl5.c
- zserge 10y agoMemory management? Most Lisp implementations have a GC, while Tcl in its simplest form has no concept of a reference, and thus there is no need for a GC - everything is passes by value. For example, a simple `sl5.c` example below leaks all the memory it ever allocates.
- gravypod 10y agoGarbage collection isn't as big a detrement to performance as you might think. There are many realtime systems that run LISP. Like original LISP from the AI crowd. You might want to check out http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html http://www.flownet.com/gat/jpl-lisp.html