> Perl has much better facilities for working with unicode

Which facilities are those ?

> many other advanced facilities for parsing

Be curious to hear what those are, but note that Tcl is hilariously simple to extend and build up custom constructs to suit ones needs.

Not to mention that Tcl has Unicode in the core, has had Unicode in the core for at least 8 years, and the long and short is that EVERY string operation is Unicode aware.

You can have unicode procedure names, if that was your fancy.

...right, which is why I was wondering where Perl's support is superior. Tcl's support isn't perfect nor complete, but it's still pretty impressive.

I would like to see what advanced facilities perl has for text parsing that TCL doesn't!

Me too, but I suspect it might take someone of tchrist's level with experience in both languages to give a good answer. I would be interested in how TCL handles the issues tchirst has to deal with outlined in his famous SO post[1].

Note: If you read that post and think, "Wow, Perl requires a lot of setup for unicode and TCP doesn't require nearly as much" without understanding the specifics of why each step is there, and how TCL handles the same issue, you are likely underthinking the issue.

1: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6162484/why-does-modern-p...