Re: Short function definition syntax; thoughts on Lua

[David Kastrup <dak@...>]

Miles Bader <miles@gnu.org> writes:

> David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:
>> I don't think that this kind of syntax fits well with the rest of Lua,
>
> That's what it comes down to -- taste.  You don't like it.

Oh, it's fine in Haskell.  Really wonderful.  I like it where it
belongs.

I like sed.  I like awk.  I like C.  I don't like perl which appears to
be based on the premise "let us accept input looking like sed scripts,
input looking like awk scripts, input looking like C".  I hate that.
Ruby goes down similar roads.  I like Ada generics and their syntax
fitting within the framework of Ada's constraint syntax.  I hate how C++
adopted them as "templates" without bothering to even match the syntax
to C.  The syntax clashes with << and >> operators, for example.

I like Scheme and Lisp to a certain degree (even though nobody actually
programs functionally in them, set!/setq being all over the place).

The one thing that really struck me about Lua is that Lua programs looks
like Lua.  They don't go fancy-syntax fishing elsewhere.  That's kind of
unusual for a script language nowadays.

> Other people do.

Good thing not everybody and the world has commit access, then.

-- 
David Kastrup