The biggest early selling point of Tcl was Tk, as a relatively easy way to make good-enough GUI programs with open source on Unixen and the X Window System. Even much easier than the easier-to-use X toolkits like XView with C, and the alternatives only got more difficult from there. There were no Web frontends.
Tcl itself was quite clever as what I'd actually call a string-based scripting language (contrast with Bourne/C-shell/etc. that preceded it on Unix).
Originally, Tcl was among the handful of off-the-shelf extension languages. You write your big application in C or C++, and then you embed an interpreter for a higher-level extension language, for users or the original developer to add on functionality. The options at the time were usually a small Lisp/Scheme, Tcl, Python, or something entirely bespoke and probably quirky and half-butted.
During early dotcoms, there was considerable interest in Tcl for backend work, and it also wouldn't have been the worst choice to put into the browser. Like Python, Tcl would've been more accessible and democratizing-the-Web than JavaScript, and there were already solid off-the-shelf designs and implementations. (Scheme would've appeared slightly more intimidating than Python or Tcl, and was more powerful, which I think was why Tim Berners-Lee preferred Python over Scheme as the people's programming language for various Web purpose. The semantics of the JavaScript we got was more a hurried toy Scheme, plus the simplest object model, and a more intimidating syntax that came from systems programming.)
Yep, the age of Python and the C-steeped culture of its original developers probably has a lot to do with the choice of Tcl/Tk as a basis for the standard library GUI framework. But even then, there's significant wrapping; and Python's type system is, if anything, even further away from the free-wheeling "stringly typed" Tcl than JavaScript is.
I do sometimes yearn for the alternate universe where web browsers ended up doing Python natively (and PyPy style optimizations became the default, and the dynamism was reined in to an extent where it could offer JavaScript-tier performance).
Aside from the emphasis on "continuation passing style" though I don't get how you're relating JavaScript to Scheme.
neilv · · focus · HN ↗
Tcl itself was quite clever as what I'd actually call a string-based scripting language (contrast with Bourne/C-shell/etc. that preceded it on Unix).
Originally, Tcl was among the handful of off-the-shelf extension languages. You write your big application in C or C++, and then you embed an interpreter for a higher-level extension language, for users or the original developer to add on functionality. The options at the time were usually a small Lisp/Scheme, Tcl, Python, or something entirely bespoke and probably quirky and half-butted.
During early dotcoms, there was considerable interest in Tcl for backend work, and it also wouldn't have been the worst choice to put into the browser. Like Python, Tcl would've been more accessible and democratizing-the-Web than JavaScript, and there were already solid off-the-shelf designs and implementations. (Scheme would've appeared slightly more intimidating than Python or Tcl, and was more powerful, which I think was why Tim Berners-Lee preferred Python over Scheme as the people's programming language for various Web purpose. The semantics of the JavaScript we got was more a hurried toy Scheme, plus the simplest object model, and a more intimidating syntax that came from systems programming.)
zahlman · · focus · HN ↗
I do sometimes yearn for the alternate universe where web browsers ended up doing Python natively (and PyPy style optimizations became the default, and the dynamism was reined in to an extent where it could offer JavaScript-tier performance).
Aside from the emphasis on "continuation passing style" though I don't get how you're relating JavaScript to Scheme.