[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Cryptic OOP syntax
- From: David Given <dg@...>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 11:17:44 +0000
On Thursday 27 January 2005 09:47, PA wrote:
> Lua is just fine as it is right now.
> With a touch of creativity, one can shape Lua in any forms one wants
> to. I personally don't feel the need for any additional syntactical
> sugar of any sort to achieve my own devious OOP needs and wants.
I agree. There's enough functionality there to implement anything you like,
any way you like. Witness, for example Raffaele Salmaso's extremely
interesting OO system using closures (so that you can call methods with '.'
instead of ':'); this gets you pretty much everything you want from an OO
syntax without needing any core support.
I'd suggest that adding any more hard-coded support for OOisms merely risks
taking Lua away from its core strengths of being *really small* without
actually adding much benefit.
A feature enhancement *I'd* prefer to see is to have the byte-code language
nailed down and properly specified, so I can generate byte-code directly and
be reasonably sure of having it run; but that's only really because I'm sick
+- David Given --McQ-+
| email@example.com | "The god of the Old Testament was actually a TRIBE
| (firstname.lastname@example.org) | OF RENEGADE SPACE CANNIBALS." --- Robert McElwaine
+- www.cowlark.com --+