 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
|
>I REALLY like many things
about Lua, mostly its small size and modest goals. >I really respect its
designers for keeping its scope small. > I even respect them for
holding fast to their syntax. >But it's just a
showstopper for a company like Apple and I'm sure we're not the only ones. I’m not sure how many other
companies would have a problem. None I’ve worked for would, despite some
of them making extensive use of _javascript_ for client and server side
applications. It seems odd to say “we can’t
use that language because a few of the syntax elements are different”,
while the fact that the semantics and much else are different is (seemingly)
not a an issue. In other words, a language that is syntactically
very close to _javascript_ but where that similar syntax does different things
seems more dangerous, more mistake-prone and less desirable. It seems to me the
only rational result of mandating this is to have a language with the syntax of
_javascript_ and the semantics of _javascript_. But that would be _javascript_ J I’d seriously have doubts about a
company that determined language acceptability on syntactical issues…. And
as others have pointed out, it would mean no Perl, no Python. no Ruby,… which
is cutting off your nose to spite your face. P. -- -- |