lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
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.