Tcl ''is'' a "toy language" in that it's simple, children learn it,
it's handy for very small programming, ...

Tcl is far more than a toy language, though, for the people who
...




[applications in Tcl and Tcl/Tk]





[Companies that use Tcl]

...
Anyone else think that Tcl might be taken more seriously were it not for the slightly childish "tickle" name? --[Andrew Cates]

[MSW] I don't think the name is a problem at all: Consider JAVA, RUBY, PERL, PYTHON ...

([TV] "Tool Command Language" strikes me as one of the more sensible names in computerworld as know, I don't see the problem. Tickle is maybe childish, maybe apt, but I've always seen TCL as simply an acronym.
)


...
The problem is lack of a hero, and marketing.  Also, perhaps worth noting are the eternal in-community battles over lack of complex, 2-dimensional arrays, speed issues (is this still true?), 
and OO (lets not get into it here).

How can TCL get a public face-lift?  
...

How about writing an interpreter for TCL in TCL?  By many peoples' standards, a language is no longer a toy language if you can write an interpreter or compiler for it in its own language.

----

Actually, I think the opposite may in fact be true. Tickle would be a cuter, warmer name 
(like Java, Python etc.), whereas Tcl looks like something IBM would invent.  --[Setok]

----

Tcl needs a new iconic mascot - a feather is ok but not fulfilling.  And not something fluffy like an otter but something than can stand up better in the boardroom.  Or maybe something more reflective of its true nature - like a squid - able to change its shape at will and adapt easily to any situation. [DL]

And of course, it's trivial to adapt anything with tentacles (tenTaCLes) to word play.
----
I do not think this perception has anything to do with the name or logo.  
   
I say this from direct experience, because I mistakenly considered Tcl a toy language for years.  I missed out on years of coding and awesomeness because of this one mistaken initial impression.
  
And I can tell you exactly why I had this misconception:  it was the rudimentary syntax.  When I first glanced at Tcl code, with its super-simple grammar, lack of punctuation, and the need for an expr command to evaluate mathematical expressions, my initial gut reaction was that I was looking at some college student's class project, like a bare-bones implementation of a subset of csh.  It was TOO simple, and I mistakenly assumed it was underpowered.
  
This is of course ironic, because much of Tcl's immense power comes from its rudimentary syntax.
   
I'll also tell you what made me see the light:  the WikiBooks tutorial on Tcl, with its stupefying array of amazing coding examples.  I was hooked when I discovered I could write a web server in 30 lines---with CGI support!---and without importing any packages.  Once I saw how easily it combined with C, I suddenly realized that it was exactly the language I wanted all these years.

So there's my recommendation for combatting the misperception of Tcl as a toy:  show people a bunch of creative and impressive examples of what you can do in a few dozen lines.  --[Xcott]
----
[Category Advocacy]