Re: Lua on Reddit again

[Andrew Lentvorski <bsder@...>]

 On 1/31/2011 5:02 PM, joao lobato wrote:
> Well, you could just patch the functions in table to assume 0 as the
> base index, write your numeric for's as starting from 0 and either
> refrain from using the {1,2,3} constructor or just write is as
> {[0]=0,1,2}

Except that:

1) I lose all benefit of being compatible with "real" Lua.  That's 
significant loss.

2) The length operator "#" enshrined 1-based arrays as language law even 
if it was only convention prior.

3) The fact that I have to write a numeric "for" to iterate in this day 
and age ticks me off. :)

Patching this would be like the FORTRAN  people who used to write C 
macros to make it a 1-based language.  There's no point.  Use FORTRAN or 
use C, don't try to mutate one into the other.

I use Lua when I need Lua.  Otherwise, I grab something else.

-a