In many respects, TCL is dead at this point ... there is still a lot of legacy use for it but few new users in comparison to Python, Ruby, etc. Rexx is dead outside of IBM shops, and was ever since Amiga and OS/2 died.
It's written "Tcl", not "TCL". This has been true for at least 10 years, as the article nicely demonstrates.
Nitpicking aside, I agree that it's not real lively, but I don't think I'd call it 'dead' quite yet either, as there is still a fair amount of active development, and anything that widely used doesn't just up and go away from one day to the next. They even published a new Tcl book recently:-)
I have never seen a dead high level language. Right now I am writting a toy scheme language with it: http://github.com/pmarin/Muddy-Scheme. Python has a Tcl interpreter built in its standart library for Tk, so Python is also dead?
Comments
In many respects, TCL is dead at this point ... there is still a lot of legacy use for it but few new users in comparison to Python, Ruby, etc. Rexx is dead outside of IBM shops, and was ever since Amiga and OS/2 died.
It's written "Tcl", not "TCL". This has been true for at least 10 years, as the article nicely demonstrates.
Nitpicking aside, I agree that it's not real lively, but I don't think I'd call it 'dead' quite yet either, as there is still a fair amount of active development, and anything that widely used doesn't just up and go away from one day to the next. They even published a new Tcl book recently:-)
http://journal.dedasys.com/2009/09/15/tcl-and-the-tk-toolkit...
I have never seen a dead high level language. Right now I am writting a toy scheme language with it: http://github.com/pmarin/Muddy-Scheme. Python has a Tcl interpreter built in its standart library for Tk, so Python is also dead?