4 ms·
I wish I had an excuse to really learn TCL. I've used it here and there but have never had an excuse to dive deep.
by zests 6y ago
I wish I had an excuse to really learn TCL. I've used it here and there but have never had an excuse to dive deep.
- bityard 6y agoI haven't written any Tcl in years but one of the things I liked about it was that it's not deep at all. Very simple rules, with enough flexibility built-in to (usually) make it do what you want.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoSounds like the Forth philosophy.
- zests 6y agoI want to get to the point where I'm comfortable using what makes Tcl special like uplevel/upvar. I can use it as a basic scripting language but I don't really grok what makes it special. Its like knowing how to use lisp but not knowing how macros work. Funnily enough this is actually where I am now with lisp.
- qznc 6y agoI think it really makes sense if you want an interactive shell. In contrast to most other languages, you need no parens or other fancy sigils for normal commands. A classic use case is a debugger like gdb. What else, though?
- stevekemp 6y agoI think the core ideas behind TCL are so simple and self-consistent that getting "deep" isn't required so much. Instead it's just a case of using it. In the past I used TCL for "expect" and for the Tk graphical toolkit. I can't say I've written anything major in TCL, but I think that's a common-case. Most people use TCL because it is embedded in applications as a scripting language/DSL. When people express interest in TCL I usually point them at antirez's simple writeup which gets a lot of the basics shown of in a simple manner: http://antirez.com/articoli/tclmisunderstood.html http://antirez.com/articoli/tclmisunderstood.html