Re: Where Tcl and Tk went wrong

[Jerome Vuarand <jerome.vuarand@...>]

2010/3/31 steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:50 PM, Alex Queiroz <asandroq@gmail.com> wrote:
>>     Kinda off-topic, but the following passage reminded me of the Lua
>> community:
>
> This quote particularly:
>
> [[
> Tcl's syntax is flexible enough that it's possible to write an OO
> system in Tcl itself ....  Over the years, a number of such systems
> have arisen, the most well-known being "Incr Tcl" ....  However, none
> of these extensions was ever included with the standard Tcl
> distribution or somehow "blessed" as the official OO system for Tcl.
>
> This meant that a newcomer to Tcl wishing to organize their code
> according to OO principles had to pick a system to use from several
> competing options.  And of course, newcomers are the least able to
> judge a complex feature like that in a language, making it a doubly
> stressful choice.
> ]]
>
> That last para is exactly applicable to Lua.

It could be argued that Lua has a "blessed" OO system, with the file
objects being its unique representative in the standard libraries. It
doesn't have *all* the OO features, but the most popular OO-tagged
languages (e.g. C++, Java, Python) don't have *all* these features
either.