Tangent on embeddability (was: Choosing Perl/Python for my particular niche)

[Cameron Laird]

In article <roy-3EDA29.08465327032004 at reader1.panix.com>,
Roy Smith  <roy at panix.com> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>2) It's dead simple to embed in a C/C++ application.  This is one place 
>where it really outshines Python.  It's literally two lines of C to get 
>a Tcl interpreter up and running.  It's equally trivial to extend Tcl by 
>providing functions in C.  Compare this to the native Python/C 
>interface, boost.python, or swig, and you really appreciate the 
>difference!
>
>For most general purpose tasks, I reach for Python first.  But if I 
>needed to provide a quick scripting interface to an existing C library, 
>or wanted to embed some easy scriptability into a large C/C++ app, Tcl 
>is what I would be looking at.

Me, too, to a large extent.  I think you overstate Tcl's
advantage, though, Roy, in a couple of ways.  First, I
agree that Tcl is objectively easier and more reliable
in embedding; Python still has blemishes in ease-of-use
and portability in this role.  It can be hard getting 
all of Python embedded correctly, especially, in my ex-
perience, when working on multiple platforms.

However, Tcl has historically been so easy that it hasn't
bothered documenting the process.  Python has a definitive
(if aging) embedding manual that I regard as more inviting
than what Tcl offers.

Also, ctypes, Boost and Pyrex *are* successful, and appear
to me progressing faster than any of their Tcl cousins.

Yet another way to look at the comparison is that a sig-
nificant number of people rely on SWIG, and, to them, 
Tcl and Python are indistinguishable.

Follow-ups narrowed.  Most of Perl's response to all of
this is, "Wait 'til 6!"
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird at phaseit.net>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net