TCL does nit exist ;-)
Uwe Klein
but no tcl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generational_list_of_programming_languages
where to insert?
uwe
suchenwi
Uwe Klein schrieb:
One could put it under all three of C (which is under BCPL), Lisp and
sh - or, maybe better, introduce it as a top-level.
Andreas Leitgeb
Done it. (at toplevel, just before "Today").
Incidentally, a tcl-page already exists on that wiki,
and now it's linked to the overview page.
Uwe Klein
List:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_programming_languages
Ordered:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generational_list_of_programming_languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphabetical_list_of_programming_languages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_list_of_programming_languages
Robert Hicks
wrote:
> suchenwi <richard.suchenwirth-bauersa...@siemens.com> wrote:
> > Uwe Klein schrieb:
> >> Lots of Programming Languages sorted by breed
> >> but no tcl:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generational_list_of_programming_languages
> >> where to insert?
> > One could put it under all three of C (which is under BCPL), Lisp and
> Incidentally, a tcl-page already exists on that wiki,
> and now it's linked to the overview page.
This is a more in-depth version:
http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Programming:Tcl
sleb...@gmail.com
I think Tcl should also be put into the "embedded language" category.
That's its original design goal. I know very few people here on c.l.c
have encountered Tcl in its embedded form, and fewer still have used
Tcl in an embedded context, but in the world of electronics CAD (Tcl's
original target "platform") Tcl is *big*. Almost every vendor uses it
for their scripting engine.
Also, I've always had the feeling, from the name of the interpreter to
the syntax of the language, that Tcl belongs to the same family of
languages as bash, tcsh and ksh - only much better structured. I mean
come on, our interpreter is not tcl, it's tclsh! Python isn't pytsh,
perl isn't perlsh and ruby isn't rubysh. But I'm reluctant to put Tcl
under the command line language category for fear of being ridiculed
:-(
In a lot of CAD programs, Tcl is indeed used as a command line
interpreter (makes it easy to link "commands" to C functions) with the
bonus side-effect of gaining scriptability. In fact, at home I
sometimes use Tcl as my shell with the help of
http://wiki.tcl.tk/16139. On Windows I certainly favor tkcon over the
COMSPEC shell.
Just my $0.02
Fredderic
"sleb...@yahoo.com" <sleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think Tcl should also be put into the "embedded language" category.
> That's its original design goal. I know very few people here on c.l.c
> have encountered Tcl in its embedded form, and fewer still have used
> Tcl in an embedded context, but in the world of electronics CAD (Tcl's
> original target "platform") Tcl is *big*. Almost every vendor uses it
> for their scripting engine.
CAD is exactly where I first encountered TCL... Though we were never
actually taught how to "script" the CAD package, beyond putting a
series of commands in a file and "source"ing it. (There weren't any
programmers in the group, including the supervisor.)
I actually learnt TCL, however, when a friend was having trouble with
some scripts of his. He mentioned they were written in TCL, I
remembered having momentarily wondered what that "TCL" stood for in the
startup output of the CAD package. So I took a look at his scripts,
and had them going before long (which says something good about the TCL
language, compared to perl, for example, which gives me a headache ;) ).
Back on the CAD package, several hours of tedious work were reduced to
about half an hour, and a whole lot less mistakes, with (basically) the
addition of the [proc], [expr] and [if] commands.
Fredderic
sleb...@gmail.com
> On 12 Dec 2006 19:41:25 -0800,
> "sleb...@yahoo.com" <sleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think Tcl should also be put into the "embedded language" category.
> > That's its original design goal. I know very few people here on c.l.c
> > have encountered Tcl in its embedded form, and fewer still have used
> > Tcl in an embedded context, but in the world of electronics CAD (Tcl's
> > original target "platform") Tcl is *big*. Almost every vendor uses it
> > for their scripting engine.
>
> CAD is exactly where I first encountered TCL... Though we were never
> actually taught how to "script" the CAD package, beyond putting a
> series of commands in a file and "source"ing it. (There weren't any
> programmers in the group, including the supervisor.)
This is one problem with Tcl's recognition as a programming language. A
lot of people are actually using it doing really serious work (like
designing next generation CPUs) but they don't actually know that what
they're using is called Tcl.
And your anecdote about debugging your friend's code illustrates how
intuitive Tcl's syntax actually is - you don't need to know the
language or read the manual to actually use it!
MH
sleb...@yahoo.com <sleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
[cut]
>I think Tcl should also be put into the "embedded language" category.
>That's its original design goal. I know very few people here on c.l.c
>have encountered Tcl in its embedded form, and fewer still have used
>Tcl in an embedded context, but in the world of electronics CAD (Tcl's
>original target "platform") Tcl is *big*. Almost every vendor uses it
>for their scripting engine.
I guess you're right with the "very few" adjective. OTOH, I'm doing CAD, and
my main jobs are:
1) Tcl systems/packaging guy
2) Tcl/Tk/QT gui guy
3) general systems guy
MH