Re: Lua and Neko comparison

[Don Hopkins <dhopkins@...>]

Paul Hudson wrote:
> Reasonable. However, exposing them to something that looks similar (in
> syntax) but is in fact different, is probably the very best way of confusing
> them.
>   
I strongly agree. It was a stupid idea for Netscape to rename LiveScript 
to JavaScript, because their goal was to intentionally confuse people 
into thinking that JavaScript had something to do with Java, which was 
all the rage at the time, while actually they're completely different 
languages, at opposite ends of the static/dynamic spectrum (and other 
spectra like their type systems, their compilers, etc).
> If management wants Javascript because they think end-users are familiar
> with it, I can understand that. If management want something that looks like
> Javascript, behaves somewhat like Javascript except where it doesn’t,
> then I think you need new management :-)
>   
Can you say "ActionScript"? Any Flash developer will tell you all about 
the horrible headaches that's caused. There are many subtle nuances 
about the differences between ActionScript and JavaScript, and even 
between different versions of ActionScript, that bite you in the ass all 
the time. The OpenLaszlo compiler (which supports both ActionScript and 
JavaScript) has to go to great lengths to resolve the differences 
between the two supposedly identical languages and their runtimes.
> In other words, I think the problem is Lua’s not Javascript (i.e. both
> syntax and semantics matter), not that Lua doesn’t look like Javascript
> (only syntax is the problem)?
>   
I think it's Apple's management that has always been and will always be 
the problem.

   -Don