lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Wow, I didn't expect so much of a response from my initial email.   :)

FWIW (and keeping in mind I have yet to write a line of Lua code), I would
rather see DO & THEN removed from the language (made optional in this case
so that existing code compiles).  While non-programmer's might be an
intended audience for Lua, the fact of the matter is Lua is a programming
language and if non-programmers are to use it they will have to learn to
program.  Fewer keywords to remember is generally better, but the syntax
that is there should be verbose (i.e. begin & end rather than { } symbols)
since non-programmers aren't generally trained to recognize symbols as
easily as words.  

The lack of semi-colons (and other subtle syntax) is also a good thing --
the C/C++ programmers among us have been trained through painful experience
to remember semi-colons and detect their existance (or lack thereof).
Non-programmers who are learning to program Lua shouldn't be forced to
endure the same torture.  Given this design goal, I don't believe that Lua
should go through the same kind of "expressive compaction" that has become
so extreme in C++.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Partelly []
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 8:45 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: Re: syntax likes and dislikes (RE: Evaluating LUA)

I for one, Im completly for eliminating redundancy.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Passaniti" <>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <>
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 6:29 PM
Subject: RE: syntax likes and dislikes (RE: Evaluating LUA)

> > With the current syntax you can almost
> > form statements that read much like
> > an English sentence:
> Find the 'then' in the following English sentence:
> If Sue is hungry she'll eat the apple.
> I honestly don't believe that removing DO and THEN from non-programmer's
> introduction to Lua is going to be the biggest stumbling block they'll
> with the language!
> My interest in removing unnecessary syntax is not to reduce typing, but to
> make Lua a smaller and more trim language.  Admittedly, making two
> optional doesn't substantially result in a leaner language, but it is
> consistent with the Lua author's stated goals.