Re: Unique directions for Lua?

["Martin Spernau" <martin@...>]

> >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.

 <snip />

Just to add my 2c:
In my impression, comparing Lua to any of the mentioned languages seem a
little off. I think the one widly uses 'scripting' language Lua can be
directly compared to is JavaScript (or better ECMA-Script).
And for one reason: the fact that both are 'traditionally' used embedded
into larger applications. I'm not saying Lua is similar to JS as language,
but in its _typical use_.
And another thing these two have in common:
Both are very distinctive languages regardless of their environment. The
JavaScript known from say the Netscape Browser is very similar to that I
would have to learn if I wanted to script some of the modern HTML-Editors
like Dreamweaver, or similar even to ActionScript if I was doing Flash. The
actual functions and methods vary from all these environments, but the
language basics (syntax, data-model, etc.) are the same.

For me the problem with Python, Perl etc. in this point is that there has
never been a conscious division between language (core) and environment
(libraries).

I agree with what has been said before in this discussion:
Lua needs to retain it's very strong and well defined core - which needs to
remain as portable,  small and efficient as possible.
The link to it's 'environment' is IMHO already well established with the Lua
API, but I agree that a simple and elegant way of adding library modules
would benefit the core. If this can be done dynamicaly w/o recompilation
would be nice, but not essential.

Well, just my 2c.

-Martin