I have lately been searching for a better C-like scripting language, so I was quite excited to see Little. STATIC TYPING! WOO HOO!
Anyway, as I said, I’ve been scouting out C-like languages such as Ch, ICI, Pawn, Pike, and S-Lang in addition to the usual suspects. In comparison to just about everything else, I found Little to have remarkably few ugly spots. Little takes C and incorporates dynamism, regexes, and Tcl/Tk interoperability with remarkable elegance. As a C guy, I really like the syntax. The only thing that makes me queasy is pattern-function calling. It feels like something Larry Wall might have cooked up.
That said, trying out Little became a bit of a downer for me. I was expecting Little to be one of those languages that gets compiled down to some other language in such a way that you don’t need to know the target language. It isn’t. Little seems to have sufficient facilities for system admin scripting, but for more general programming you have reach down and pull up things from Tcl. The Tcl stuff may be a small part of your eventual code, but you have to know what all is there for when you need it. Getting into Little, I felt like I was doing double the work, having to familiarize myself with two languages in order to use one. It felt kind of weird, too, having to keep two very different languages in mind at the same time.
There is a big market for embedded scripting languages: Lua, Squirrel, AngelScript, GameMonkey, etc. Describing Little as a C-like scripting language with static typing would attract a lot of attention from people looking for an alternative to those. But I think most would be put off by the need to also handle Tcl in a fairly sophisticated way. Making that aspect of Little more prominent in the advertized features would, I think, help people more quickly assess whether Little is for them.