[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Short function definition syntax; thoughts on Lua
- From: David Kastrup <dak@...>
- Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:18:26 +0100
Miles Bader <email@example.com> writes:
> David Kastrup <firstname.lastname@example.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
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.