Re: Tcl vs. Lua

Hmm, I'm going to have to re-arrange the posting order to answer this.
So is this "middle posting"?

Cameron Laird wrote:
> In article <1135902376.793251.228540@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> slebetman@yahoo.com <slebetman@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 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.
> > <snip>
> >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".

Lisa Pearlson.

> As it stands, that's simply not true.

I also said that it is not true.

> >I'd think Tcl would be perfect for this since this sort of stuff
> >involves a lot of text processing.
>
> slebetman, do you truly believe that Tcl is inappropriate for
> construction of installers because Tcl makes "text processing"
> too difficult?

I don't see how you can interpret the phrase "Tcl would be perfect" to
mean "Tcl is inappropriate". So let me rephrase what I said by
paraphrasing you: Tcl is inappropriate for construction of installers
because Tcl makes "text processing" easy.

> That doesn't make sense to me--particularly not with the evidence of
> <URL: http://wiki.tcl.tk/1896 >.

Doesn't make sense to me too since Lua is not as 'EIAS' as Tcl.
Received on Tue Jan 3 03:09:55 2006