|
On 11/18/2014 02:22 PM, Andrew Starks
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 18, 2014, Thomas Jericke <tjericke@indel.ch>
wrote:
On 11/18/2014 11:36 AM, Andrew Starks wrote:
/*
** $Id: lua.h,v 1.319 2014/10/17 19:17:55 roberto Exp $
** Lua - A Scripting Language
** Lua.org, PUC-Rio, Brazil (http://www.lua.org)
** See Copyright Notice at the end of this file
*/
A scripting language that not particularly convenient for
scripting?
I think there is no agreement here what 'scripting' means.
I am not really sure either, but I am sure, that accessing
the OS is not a relevant criteria. ECMAScript is a good
counter example for this kind of scripting language,
as you can't access the OS directly at all.
--
Thomas
Tim and Dirk's arguments are very well-made and I won't
choose a side.
Lua is a scripting language that should, and does, provide a
simple and consistent environment, within the constraints of
a C89+ library. There are other areas where more simplicity
is possible, but not provided, because of a mixture of
complexity and a lack of "one clear answer."
I also think that it might be hard to predict the
impact in the Real World. It will not be zero. Will it
stick out amongst all of the other, subtle ways in which
programming reminds you that you're working with
abstractions? I would predict no.
In my case, I would much rather have this behavior than
a promotion to float, for example.
-Andrew
Could it be, that you quoted the wrong mail?
--
Thomas
Not really. I thought that your comment was just part of
their discussion, and that was my intent. I may have missed a
point of etiquette and my apologies if I was unclear.
No worries, you only confused me. I was searching for a connection
between what I wrote and what you wrote ;-)
--
Thomas
|
