On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:40:57PM -0600, Nick Bender wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:29 PM, Otto Moerbeek <o...@drijf.net> wrote: >> > On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:00:24AM -0600, Nick Bender wrote: >> >> <raises head> >> >> >> >> TCL? BSD, small, fast, been around forever, C like syntax. In base >> >> would be awesome... >> >> >> >> <ducks> >> > >> > How can a language where everything is a string be good? >> > >> > ? ? ? ?-Otto >> >> While that was true in early versions it is no longer the case. As >> values are used they are converted to the appropriate representation, >> e.g.: >> >> set x 1; set y 2 >> set z [expr $x+$y] >> >> After assignment x and y are strings. During the evaluation of expr >> they are converted to integers and z is assigned an integer value. > > Type unsafeness is staring me in the face. >
Optional. You are indeed free to program unsafely. Type safety falls fairly low in the list of things I value in a language. Maybe that's why my java for example tends toward defining everything as a string and then applying types when there is a reason. I live in layer seven most of the time and real world data is very messy. >> >> TCL is fairly modern at this point with features such as JIT byte >> compilation of procs. > > Having a smart interpreter doesn't make the language better. > > Anyway, I don't want to go into language wars here. > > -Otto Agreed. Have good weekend everyone, not beer-thirty here yet but soon...
