[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: co-routines [was Re: Unicode]
- From: oti@...
- Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001 10:36:27 -0000
--- In lua-l@y..., Edgar Toernig <froese@g...> wrote:
> Discussions are very difficult if you get no response... I guess
> most subscribers are programmers but there have been not very much
> discussions about new ideas and their implementation. Pretty
I have been reading lua-l on egroups for about a year now, but I
decided to subscribe just to reply to this message.
The main reason I use lua is as a small, fast, embedded, C-callable
scripting language. There are other languages I have evaluated for
this purpose: Scheme (libscheme, UMBscheme and Tinyscheme), s-lang,
Small (a C-alike), various small Forth implementations (FICL, 4th),
and various small Basics (YABL, SmallBasic, Bywater Basic).
Small, Forth and Basic I discarded because they lacked enough
variable types (notably floating point), and have limiting semantics.
Scheme is my personal favourite, but implementations suffer from a
lack of speed, plus the syntax is a problem from a maintenance and
widespread useability viewpoint. S-lang and Lua have easily
learnable, conventional syntaxes. Lua wins out over s-lang because it
is (a) very small and (b) has better semantics.
What I am *not* looking for is an everything-but-the-kitchen-sink
language. That niche is already filled with the likes of Tcl, Perl,
Python, Ruby, Pike etc, and turning Lua into such a language would be
a tremendous duplication of effort.
I am also not looking for a language with cute, advanced features.
Small extension languages rarely require them in practice: how often
are continuations needed in scripts? R5RS Scheme is a fine language
to experiment in; this is a very small niche indeed.
I am currently very satisfied with Lua 4.0; coroutines would be a
welcome addition, and a little more support for modules and
namespaces would be nice, but a lot of the extra syntactic sugar
being proposed is IMHO simply not neccessary.