Re: Unique directions for Lua?

[CRIBBSJ <CRIBBSJ@...>]

wuerchj wrote:

> I agree completely, I don't want another Python.  Lua is fast and 
> small, and usable in embedded systems.  I could really care less 
> about the discussions people have about lexical scoping, and 
> correctness, and anything that isn't about size and speed.
IMHO, it would make more sense to compare Lua to Tcl, not Python or 
Perl.  Python is know for its "batteries" included philosophy.  Perl is 
just ... bloated (not that that's horrible; you can get A LOT done with 
Perl).  Tcl, on the other hand, is still relatively lean and mean.  Most 
of the time, if you want to run a Tcl extension, you just download it 
into your working directory and either "source" it or "load" it.  No 
having to mess with PPM (sp?) or running setup.py.

However, Tcl does have some pretty funky syntactical quirks.  Thats why 
I get excited when I think about the idea of having the clean syntax of 
Lua with the ease of use of Tcl's extension usage.  I look at Lua as 
being a successor to Tcl.  Of course, I hold Tcl in a lot higher regard 
than a lot of people do.  :)

By the way, in response to your statement above, there are a lot of 
people on this list who could care less about the discussions people 
have about Lua's embedded capabilities.  :)     I think Lua is a good 
enough language to satisfy both camps.

Jamey.