Re: I dont understand all those discussions.

[Russell Haley <russ.haley@...>]

On Thu, Jul 21, 2016 at 2:11 PM, Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jul 2016 21:21:05 +0200
> Oliver Kroth <oliver.kroth@nec-i.de> wrote:
>
>>
>> Am 21.07.2016 um 20:27 schrieb Ulrich Schmidt:
>> > I cant follow all the complains about table handling. If i know how
>> > tables work ( and they work well from my point of view) then i
>> > write my own code in a way my code keeps working. For me it looks
>> > like, people want to go from here to there in a shortest way but
>> > there is a wall between. Now i can complain about the wall again
>> > and again or i find the door in the wall and go thru the door. The
>> > way to walk may be a little bit longer but i reach my destination.
>>
>
>> Hi all
>>
>> I agree with Ulrich. Strongly.
>>
>> I have to switch a lot between Lua and JavaScript, and their
>> table/array implementations.
>
> I agree with Oliver and Ulrich. In my view, one of Lua's greatest gifts
> is that tables (and metatables) are the only complex data form, and you
> can use them to make any data you want. All you have to do is get
> really good at tables, and Lua becomes your faithful servant.
>
>> And I have to say, I do favour the Lua implementation, where there is
>> only one data structure covering both, and especially only one
>> literal to initialize it. Makes storing data much easier!
>>
>> If people need an iterator that jumps over holes when enumerating the
>> array part, why don't they make one?
>
> I agree. There are probably ten different ways of doing it, and given
> Lua's performance, they'll be fast even if they seem a little hokey.
>
> If Lua's addons were as carefully curated as Python's, I'd use Lua
> every day, because Lua's for sure the best language as a language. Why
> people keep asking for more features in this beautifully simple
> language is beyond me.
<humour> Well, for the same reason we don't all write things in
assembly I suppose? ;) </humour>

Russ