Re: Tcl vs. Lua
- From: "Donal K. Fellows" <donal.k.fellows@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:38:06 GMT
Cameron Laird wrote:
Lua is tops for "easy integration with C/C++". Tcl is almost
as simple. Tcl, as it happens, offers at least a half-dozen
distinct idioms for Tcl-C co-operation. One of these is called, "stubs". Lua lacks stubs, to the best of my knowledge
(although only straightforward if tedious effort lies in the
way of someone who wants to endow Lua with stubs).
Stubs is in part an attitude to backward compatability that is oriented to very stable APIs and heavy production use. Actually stubbing an API isn't very hard; you use automated tools to do most of the maintenance after all. But keeping those promises you made by adopting a stubbed API, well, that's a different story altogether.
FWIW, most commercial software is nothing like as stable as Tcl, even if we restrict ourselves to examining just the API (and leave out things like propensity to crash, etc.) To see what I mean by this, you have to realize that code that was compiled to binary form against Tcl 8.1 (i.e. perhaps as far back as May 1999) will still probably work if loaded into the CVS HEAD version of 8.5, over six and a half years later. (Of course, if we talk about source compatability, I've got code that was written against Tcl 7.4 which still builds now, over a decade later.)
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: Cameron Laird
- Tcl vs. Lua
- Prev by Date: Re: console output in 8.4.12 on windows
- Next by Date: Re: Access named pipe in Windows XP
- Previous by thread: Re: Tcl vs. Lua
- Next by thread: file readable / open
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|