⚫️ Last week, version 0.11 of the Tolk programming language—created for TON—was released. At first glance, this might seem like a niche update relevant only to Tolk developers. “Type aliases? What’s that, and why should I care if I’m not a programmer?” But if you take a closer look, an interesting process is unfolding—one that could be significant for the future of TON.
⚫️ As we’ve previously explained, smart contracts on TON can be written in two programming languages: Tact and FunC/Tolk (Tolk is the “next generation” of FunC). FunC has been considered “powerful but complex,” and that complexity has discouraged some developers from working with TON. Tact, on the other hand, is simpler—it handles certain tasks like serialization automatically—but this convenience came at the cost of higher blockchain fees, which was also a deterrent. So, each language had its strengths, but also key drawbacks that slowed down the growth of the ecosystem.
⚫️ In March, we wrote about a new version of Tact that aimed to reduce fees. And now, the latest version of Tolk lays the groundwork for making development faster and easier. Nick Nekilov, the creator of DeDust.io, commented on the Tolk update:
This is a necessary step toward auto-serializing structures (so developers won’t need to manually serialize and maintain everything). That will significantly speed up the smart contract development process.
In other words, where Tact used to handle serialization for developers, in the future Tolk will start doing that too—in its own way.
⚫️ So both languages are actively working to eliminate their weaknesses while preserving their strengths. In the FunC/Tolk world, development effort is being reduced; in the Tact world, gas fees are being lowered. These kinds of improvements could attract more developers to TON, аnd that’s good news even for those who don’t write code themselves—because everyone benefits from a growing developer community.
⚫️ Some may ask: “If both languages end up with low fees, auto-serialization, and so on, won’t they just merge into one?” Our answer: their fundamental approaches are too different for the distinction to vanish entirely, but the gap between them may become less significant. It’s as if both languages are taking steps toward one another—they won’t meet at a single point, but the distance is narrowing.
⚫️ Another question arises: “If their key differences disappear, will we even need two languages?” If the main trade-offs that used to shape developer preferences fade away, then what’s the point of choosing at all? Among developers, opinions vary—from “once Tolk is fully developed, Tact won’t be needed” to “once Tact is fully developed, Tolk won't be needed.”
👁 As for The Daily TON team, we’ll hold off on making predictions for now. We’ll keep an eye on developments and let you know how things unfold.
@thedailyton