I've read previously that certain parts of the software industry at one point was all in on move fast and break things, but then after a while the quality of their code was so bad that they took a different course. Maybe some people didn't get their fill the first time round. I can see that LLMs are going to be quick, I can't see how their code bases are going to do anything but turn into a very bad state, probably much more so this time round.
Sometimes the last 10% takes 90% of the time. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out, and whether it will eventually get to something that could be considered a solved problem.
I'm not so sure they'll get there. If the solved problem is defined as a sub-standard but low cost, then I wouldn't bet against that. A solution better than that though, I don't think I'd put my money on that.
Tcl is a real programming language, but it depends on what you are doing with it. There are a lot of people who have never come into contact with command languages, and so there are plenty that look at it and have a negative response. For a lot of people though, Tcl is as easy to program in as Python or any other scripting language. It's a heck of a lot _easier_ to program in than a lot of so called real programming languages. I've found Ousterhout's dichotomy to be true, using two languages for a codebase is very efficient, but again, it'll depend on what you're doing.
It depends what you mean by easy. There are fewer features sure, but it's kind of like saying building a house with just a hand saw and a hammer is easy. Sure there are fewer tools to learn if you don't use CAD, power tools, laser levels, etc. But it's a bit dubious to say it's easier.
Tcl doesn't have fewer features, it packs in a lot, probably because of its maturity, to a similar level as other mature scripting languages (OO, coroutines, event loop, slave interps, etc, etc). But it's poor when you want something to run quick, or if you want to carefully manage memory because you have a lot of data. Also there is no typing, and for large code bases that is detrimental. But by using two languages you can get the best of both worlds. But then you need to program competently in two languages, and that takes a surprising amount of experience, and the hand saw and hammer analogy isn't accurate in this case.
Tcl does appear to be a command language done right, I don't think there is a better one. As it was designed after bash etc, I guess the Tcl developers could see the inconsistencies there, which helped them do Tcl right.
For incorporating into Tcl I'd prefer something simpler that would also work with existing procs. Building on {*}, maybe {@} could work (to skip over arguments to a specified argument}. e.g. when calling a function:
someFunc someVal anotherVal {@}someArgName yetAnotherVal
