167 lines
3.2 KiB
HTML
167 lines
3.2 KiB
HTML
<HTML
|
|
><HEAD
|
|
><TITLE
|
|
>Introduction</TITLE
|
|
><META
|
|
NAME="GENERATOR"
|
|
CONTENT="Modular DocBook HTML Stylesheet Version 1.7"><LINK
|
|
REL="HOME"
|
|
TITLE="VB6 To Tcl mini-HOWTO"
|
|
HREF="index.html"><LINK
|
|
REL="PREVIOUS"
|
|
TITLE="VB6 To Tcl mini-HOWTO"
|
|
HREF="index.html"><LINK
|
|
REL="NEXT"
|
|
TITLE="Examples"
|
|
HREF="examples.html"></HEAD
|
|
><BODY
|
|
CLASS="SECT1"
|
|
BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF"
|
|
TEXT="#000000"
|
|
LINK="#0000FF"
|
|
VLINK="#840084"
|
|
ALINK="#0000FF"
|
|
><DIV
|
|
CLASS="NAVHEADER"
|
|
><TABLE
|
|
SUMMARY="Header navigation table"
|
|
WIDTH="100%"
|
|
BORDER="0"
|
|
CELLPADDING="0"
|
|
CELLSPACING="0"
|
|
><TR
|
|
><TH
|
|
COLSPAN="3"
|
|
ALIGN="center"
|
|
>VB6 To Tcl mini-HOWTO</TH
|
|
></TR
|
|
><TR
|
|
><TD
|
|
WIDTH="10%"
|
|
ALIGN="left"
|
|
VALIGN="bottom"
|
|
><A
|
|
HREF="index.html"
|
|
ACCESSKEY="P"
|
|
>Prev</A
|
|
></TD
|
|
><TD
|
|
WIDTH="80%"
|
|
ALIGN="center"
|
|
VALIGN="bottom"
|
|
></TD
|
|
><TD
|
|
WIDTH="10%"
|
|
ALIGN="right"
|
|
VALIGN="bottom"
|
|
><A
|
|
HREF="examples.html"
|
|
ACCESSKEY="N"
|
|
>Next</A
|
|
></TD
|
|
></TR
|
|
></TABLE
|
|
><HR
|
|
ALIGN="LEFT"
|
|
WIDTH="100%"></DIV
|
|
><DIV
|
|
CLASS="SECT1"
|
|
><H1
|
|
CLASS="SECT1"
|
|
><A
|
|
NAME="INTRO"
|
|
></A
|
|
>1. Introduction</H1
|
|
><P
|
|
><EM
|
|
>VB and VBScript programmers: I know how you
|
|
feel.</EM
|
|
> Really. As a Microsoft Certified Professional in
|
|
VB6, I've been doing those languages for 7 years. I really
|
|
liked them, until I got over the hump in Tcl and started noticing
|
|
the differences in flexibility that are shown here. If Tcl looks
|
|
completely alien to you, and you wonder how in the world they
|
|
dreamed it up, hold it up beside a piece of C code, or a UNIX shell
|
|
script. I think those are what influenced it the most. UNIX shell
|
|
scripts are a lot more advanced than MS Windows shell scripts, even
|
|
those on NT/2000. In fact, UNIX shell scripts have a lot of the
|
|
capabilities shown here. Both Tcl and shell script are based
|
|
largely on string substitution. I chose to study Tcl over shell
|
|
scripts because Tcl code is much more verbose and English-like (and
|
|
therefore maintainable) than shell scripts, which tend to be
|
|
cryptic. Some of the shell script command names are just
|
|
punctuation alone!</P
|
|
><P
|
|
>Tcl also runs easily on the "big 4" PC
|
|
platforms (Linux, *nix, Windows, Mac) as well as some others. This
|
|
is promised by Java(tm), but delivered just as much (or more) by
|
|
Tcl. And unlike Java and VB, Tcl is free of any commercial
|
|
influences (which is true freedom, not just "free of
|
|
charge"); over the years its development path sticks
|
|
closer to what is really needed and wanted by you, its developers
|
|
and potential developers. There has been no parent company to steer
|
|
Tcl away from that and toward the company's own interests. The
|
|
most startling contrast of all between Tcl and VB is that Tcl may
|
|
even overshadow all the technical differences shown below.</P
|
|
></DIV
|
|
><DIV
|
|
CLASS="NAVFOOTER"
|
|
><HR
|
|
ALIGN="LEFT"
|
|
WIDTH="100%"><TABLE
|
|
SUMMARY="Footer navigation table"
|
|
WIDTH="100%"
|
|
BORDER="0"
|
|
CELLPADDING="0"
|
|
CELLSPACING="0"
|
|
><TR
|
|
><TD
|
|
WIDTH="33%"
|
|
ALIGN="left"
|
|
VALIGN="top"
|
|
><A
|
|
HREF="index.html"
|
|
ACCESSKEY="P"
|
|
>Prev</A
|
|
></TD
|
|
><TD
|
|
WIDTH="34%"
|
|
ALIGN="center"
|
|
VALIGN="top"
|
|
><A
|
|
HREF="index.html"
|
|
ACCESSKEY="H"
|
|
>Home</A
|
|
></TD
|
|
><TD
|
|
WIDTH="33%"
|
|
ALIGN="right"
|
|
VALIGN="top"
|
|
><A
|
|
HREF="examples.html"
|
|
ACCESSKEY="N"
|
|
>Next</A
|
|
></TD
|
|
></TR
|
|
><TR
|
|
><TD
|
|
WIDTH="33%"
|
|
ALIGN="left"
|
|
VALIGN="top"
|
|
>VB6 To Tcl mini-HOWTO</TD
|
|
><TD
|
|
WIDTH="34%"
|
|
ALIGN="center"
|
|
VALIGN="top"
|
|
> </TD
|
|
><TD
|
|
WIDTH="33%"
|
|
ALIGN="right"
|
|
VALIGN="top"
|
|
>Examples</TD
|
|
></TR
|
|
></TABLE
|
|
></DIV
|
|
></BODY
|
|
></HTML
|
|
> |