On Nov 6, 2007 3:34 PM, cdr &lt;_@<a href="http://whats-your.name">whats-your.name</a>&gt; wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">&gt; when you say Tcl is<br>&gt; wacky, just how wacky do you mean? &nbsp;I noticed that its handling of most<br>&gt; programming capabilities is pretty off-beat, but I&#39;m finding it very easy to<br></div>
&gt; learn and understand. Would you say there are serious<br><div class="Ih2E3d">&gt; flaws or inefficiencies, or is it just idiosyncratic?<br><br></div>in the &#39;scripting language written in C&#39; category, Perl wins any idiosyncratic contest. TCL also far from Lua in speed. like Lua and unlike all the others (Python, Ruby), you have to invent your own OO system, however Lua has syntactic sugar for &#39;object methods&#39; and a native language feature for &#39;method lookup&#39; so it has an edge here. all of the above are embeddable in C apps to some extent, but Lua wins that contest handily, being designed for that from the start.
<br></blockquote><div><br>Thank you very much for all this info.&nbsp; It may not mean much to you, but it&#39;s very useful for me.<br>I&#39;m leaning now towards building the program in C, with Tk bindings; my 2 most beloved audio tools are open-source C, Pd and Csound, and my free days are numbered, so I think I&#39;ll spend them practicing a language I need to know better anyway.&nbsp; I&#39;ll save this email.
<br><br>-Chuckk<br><br></div></div>-- <br><a href="http://www.badmuthahubbard.com">http://www.badmuthahubbard.com</a>