> It would be productive to take Crockford's list of the "awful parts" and "bad parts" of JS and compare the two languages on themI've attempted something similar with my "Good, bad, and ugly parts":
I noticed the same thing about "continue". It's indeed interesting
> (note that Crockford considers the presence of a continue statement to be one of the bad parts).
that it's in "bad" parts for JS, but it's often mentioned as missing
in Lua (I put the lack of "continue" in the "different" category).
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Eric Bohlman <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 09/06/2013 06:17 PM, Rena wrote:
> They are in fact quite similar languages: they're both members of both the
> Algol and Lisp families, owing as much to Scheme as they do to C; they both
> use prototypal inheritance; they were both originally intended to be
> embedded in larger programs written in "systems" languages and have
> established major niches in that use, while still being useful as
> general-purpose languages. I think of JS as Lua's little brother, who at
> first appeared to have hopeless developmental delays but has recently
> undergone a major growth spurt.
> It would be productive to take Crockford's list of the "awful parts" and
> "bad parts" of JS and compare the two languages on them (note that Crockford
> considers the presence of a continue statement to be one of the bad parts).
nil) and can be indexed by values of any type (except
[1, 2, 5, foo = "bar", [func] = "something", ["some spaces"] = value()].