Tcl isn’t a bad language, but you won’t find many people which are good at it. And it’s an old language, which you can see when you look at it’s design.
Python (and other languages) support many different programming concepts from the start and there are far more people which know the language pretty good. So, if there are plans to integrate such a scripting language, my choice would also be Python(3). Greetings, Torsten > Am 04.07.2016 um 20:37 schrieb Adam Jensen <han...@riseup.net>: > > On 07/04/2016 02:21 PM, Paul Koning wrote: >> >>> On Jul 4, 2016, at 1:58 PM, Tristan Gingold <tging...@free.fr> wrote: >>> I agree. Yes to scripting, but maybe not with tcl. >>> (Although it would be better to have a generic scripting infrastructure to >>> support any language). >> >> Generic is fine, but i agree with Patrick that Tcl is a "language" to be >> avoided at all costs. Python is good. Note that GDB adopted Python as its >> scripting language some time ago after considering a bunch of alternatives. >> It has the advantage of substantially cleaner syntax than most if not all >> competitors. And yes, embedding it is pretty simple. Note though that >> there is some complexity in supporting both Python 2 and Python 3 since the >> internals are slightly different, and not as well documented as they ought >> to be. (If you want to support only one of the two, make it Python 3.) > > Wow, I would not have guessed that this community would have such a > strong aversion to Tcl. Is it the syntax? Or the Tcl culture? Are there > issues with a particular implementation? I, personally, have no vested > interest; it just seemed to fit the design requirements... > > _______________________________________________ > Ghdl-discuss mailing list > Ghdl-discuss@gna.org > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Ghdl-discuss mailing list Ghdl-discuss@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/ghdl-discuss
