Re: Best and Worst of Lua

[Asko Kauppi <askok@...>]

So, John...

You did not reveal your answer to the original question?  ;)

"plenty of things" is rather vague, eh?   Loosely typed.

-asko


John Belmonte kirjoitti 16.7.2007 kello 0:31:

> Asko Kauppi wrote:
> > 1. Lua is best for embedded cases where string handling etc. in C  
> > would
> > _really_ suck.
>
> ...which could be said of any language with saner string support  
> than C.
>
> > Lua is best for quick days when things need to be done to work  
> > (with as
> > few lines as possible)
>
> I don't agree.  For shortest average completion time of a random
> programming task, you will benefit from a large number of available
> libraries (e.g. see Perl, Python).  Taking a two day coding detour to
> compensate for modules which already exist in the mature stand-alone
> scripting languages is not productive to your task at hand.
>
> Lua is best for plenty of things, just not what you mention.
>
> --John