2 ms·

I assumed what he meant by "the foundation" was the libraries and culture, which Perl demonstrably has gotten pretty right, while Tcl hasn't. If the foundation

I assumed what he meant by "the foundation" was the libraries and culture, which Perl demonstrably has gotten pretty right, while Tcl hasn't. If the foundation is everything you build your projects on top of, then Perl has a vastly better foundation. If the foundation is just the language itself, then Tcl is pretty good. So, I see where you're coming from if speaking only of the language itself. Tcl is a quite nice, well-thought-out, language. It has a few quirks, but so does Perl.

mhd 12y ago
Yes, that's what I intended to say. Maybe "foundations" would've been clearer. The first two of which would probably be the language design itself and the implementation. I'd rather not argue about the former, and regarding the latter I don't have a lot of experience with Perl, although I've heard that it's gotten better once they awoke out of the post-Perl6 slump. Still, Tcl was always pretty great in that regard. But as we're talking about the CPAN here, a lot of the alternatives come out short-handed, and Tcl amongst them. I remember the days when you had a different interpreter for every extension...