Re: Tcl vs. Lua

slebetman@yahoo.com wrote:
> But since Lua is so small, I suspect it uses even less resource than Tcl.

Lua is definitely smaller than Tcl. It achieves this by leaving out lots
of stuff, so much so that Lua is a language that is only usable in
practice after extension (I think it doesn't have a full I/O system, for
example). By contrast, you can do a lot in plain tclsh without binary
packages, and many people do just that.

What'll be interesting is to see if Lua grows over time like Tcl did.
And if it does, what mistakes in the provided libraries do the Lua
developers make. (If it doesn't grow, it'll remain a niche language,
used in embedded situations where the programmer hasn't heard of Forth.)

Donal.
Received on Tue Jan 3 03:09:52 2006