Re: Tcl vs. Lua
- From: "Donal K. Fellows" <donal.k.fellows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:26:07 GMT
slebetman@xxxxxxxxx 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. .
- References:
- Tcl vs. Lua
- From: Lisa Pearlson
- Re: Tcl vs. Lua
- From: Cameron Laird
- Re: Tcl vs. Lua
- From: Lisa Pearlson
- Re: Tcl vs. Lua
- From: slebetman@xxxxxxxxx
- Tcl vs. Lua
- Prev by Date: Re: Underlining text on canvas
- Next by Date: Re: console output in 8.4.12 on windows
- Previous by thread: Re: Tcl vs. Lua
- Next by thread: Re: Tcl vs. Lua
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|