On 06/29/12 01:03, Otto Moerbeek 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?
How can a language where everything is a string be _not_ good? How can a language where everything is an object be good? Silly questions. >>> >>> ? ? ? ?-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. > >> >> 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 > Not that that's what you were doing, but one problem Tcl has these days shedding 10-year-old fud arguments. That and being awesome, which is admittedly less of a problem. Stu
