Re: LUA Vs Javascript

["troels knak-nielsen" <troelskn@...>]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Stephen Kellett
<lua@objmedia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> That is the problem. You think that because people are free not to write as
> well as you, that that is good. I don't agree. When they come looking for
> information from a tool they are confused as to why that information is not
> there. Even more so if they've used a similar tool from a different language
> where type information is present everywhere (C, C++, Java, etc).

This sounds like the good old statically typed vs. dynamically typed debate.

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Stephen Kellett
<lua@objmedia.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> When we started with JavaScript, we also got "Object" for most objects, at
> first. And, if you go via the JS API, that is what you will get. We did a
> lot of digging under the hood and found we could get useful type information
> most of the time. I can't remember the details right now, I can look it up
> if people are interested (I doubt it :-). When we tried the same thing for

Actually, I'm intrigued. If you can find it, I would like to see said code.