I 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 p

I 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