5 ms·
Not who you're replying to, but Tcl was that language for me. Dead-simple syntax, documentation, and behavior. I loved it. But also dead-simple tools. And if yo
by bityard 4y ago
Not who you're replying to, but Tcl was that language for me. Dead-simple syntax, documentation, and behavior. I loved it. But also dead-simple tools. And if you wanted to do anything that wasn't a "solved problem" already, you had to write your own library.
When I switched my focus to Python, everything was more effort but I could also do _much_ more with it.
- dusted 4y ago> And if you wanted to do anything that wasn't a "solved problem" already, you had to write your own library. For which language is that statement not true ?
- girvo 4y agoTheir point is that the language they’re discussing requires you to write that library far more often than other languages, as a second order effect of few using it. But you know that already, you just want to make a semi-snarky reply instead, I guess.
- dusted 4y agoNo, I just sincerely don't believe that library availability indicates anything except library availability. It tells nothing about a language other than how man libraries are available.
- lmm 4y agoInteresting - I found TCL to be very much the opposite, because it makes "meta" things so easy. Like, if you want to write your own control flow construct, you can go right ahead, it's like Lisp except that it's easier to write macros.