Re: Tcl vs. Lua

In article <1135902376.793251.228540@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
slebetman@yahoo.com <slebetman@gmail.com> wrote:
                        .
                        .
                        .
>I'd think Tcl would be perfect for this since this sort of stuff
>involves a lot of text processing.
>
>> It seems Lua's strengths is smaller footprint and better performance than
>> TCL. And they said it runs on mobile devices too. TCL is too slow for mobile
>> devices, I was told on here.
>>
>
>Tcl runs fine on mobile devices - better than Java IMHO since Tcl uses
>less RAM. The Tcl interpreter is usually the first interpreter to be
>ported on small platforms. But since Lua is so small, I suspect it uses
>even less resource than Tcl. But saying Tcl is slow for mobile devices
>is just plain wrong since the same mobile devices are usually designed
>to run Java.
>

Please point me to the person who told you that, "TCL is too
slow for mobile devices". As it stands, that's simply not
true.

slebetman, do you truly believe that Tcl is inappropriate for
construction of installers because Tcl makes "text processing"
too difficult? That doesn't make sense to me--particularly
not with the evidence of <URL: http://wiki.tcl.tk/1896 >.
Received on Tue Jan 3 03:09:48 2006