I suppose you would use this to do low level stuff because it's much harder to do in TCL, but it just doesn't feel right.
It makes more sense to me to embed Tk into a C program.
It makes more sense to me to embed Tk into a C program.
Critcl looks to be quite nice in those situations when Tcl/Tk is almost but not quite, you get the speed and ease of Tcl/Tk but a little more as well. The big gotcha looks to be having the foresight of identifying when writing a proper Tcl/Tk extension or switching language is the better plan, but this is almost always the big gotcha.
Being able to compile ephemeral objects is actually pretty useful in some use-cases. =3
Expanding TCL C support proves it is not deprecated as some suggested (most Java VM also run a dual stack with C/C++ native binary object support.)
Automated remote host administration with TCL is one area where it still works extremely well... I guess it is not relevant if people like pseudo-repetitive typing... so much typing people actually know all the parameters to tar without the manual. lol
Have a great day =3
https://wiki.tcl-lang.org/page/Tcl+vs%2E+TCL
Which gets into the syntactical preference people developed over time.
The Tool Command Language acronym allusion is rather distinct from a popular "Tcl" colloquialism for the "tickle" project. From my perspective Tcl is a TCL, but not all TCLs are necessarily Tcl nor include a specific extension package.
Have a glorious day friend =3
You have a nice day too! =3