Re: (kick,ass): => kick( ass ) ::

[Norman Ramsey <nr@...>]

 > Does Lua need a short lambda syntax? I like FP and lambda calculus as
 > much as the next guy, but if you want a minimalist functional language
 > what is wrong with Scheme?

Well, let's see:

  1. The latest standard is an immense, bloated hog.

  2. The previous standard is a bloated hog.

  3. Implementations "embrace and extend" the standard.  Good luck
     writing portable code.

  4. There's no embedded implementation that even comes close to Lua
     in quality and craftsmanship.

  5. Scheme doesn't have Lua tables.

  6. Scheme doesn't have metamethods or userdata.

  7. Scheme *requires* call/cc, which places an undue burden on
     implementations. 

  8. Scheme code looks like oatmeal with fingernail clippings.


OK, just kidding about that last one---had to channel my inner Larry
Wall just for a moment.

Seriously, Scheme isn't 'minimalist' any longer, and it hasn't been
for a long time.  Lua has a much better power-to-weight ratio.  Even
though I hate, hate, hate the fact that I can't write anonymous
functions concisely.


Norman