[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Is there any plan to include build-in class support?
- From: "Peter Sommerfeld" <peter@...>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 21:29:48 +0100
Am 12.01.2011, 18:36 Uhr, schrieb Fabien <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Steve Litt
I wrote the entirety of the Lua version of UMENU and the Lua EMDL to
UMENU converter using obj.method(args).
That's another instance of the problem under the recurring "we want a
blessed stdlib" rants: the problem isn't that you did something
unidiomatic in Lua, it is that you did it in good faith.You couldn't
identify an established normal way of doing common stuff
Ther is no idiomatic way to manage objects in Lua. As it
has been said: "Lua provides the mechanisms..." True
closures came relatively late into the language so some
conventions to use the ':' has been established before.
But that is a historical fact, not a idiomatic way.
IMHO the closure approach is much better. It provides
more controll and is more easy to understand. You
have to pay a little on runtime efficency, but that is
probably most time of no relevance. But well, that is
up to you, the user...
I don't understand why people ask for standards instead
to enjoy the freedom Lua gives them. There are points to
to criticize Lua, a missing std lib or object model is
not among them. IMHO of course.
I think Lua requires a different mindseit then, for instance,
Python or languages like this. Otherwise I could use one
of them. The language which fits exactly into my mindset
has not been born yet :-)
I haven't seen any clear response from the team about this,
but the Linus answer ("show me the code first", and here,
"show me your ability to organize and to settle
disagreements") would seem appropriate to me.