Lua in comp.lang.forth

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Lua in comp.lang.forth

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
John Passaniti, a lua-l old-timer, has posted this to comp.lang.forth:

 "The Lua community shows brilliantly how people can work together while
 still maintaining their diverse opinions on what objects are and how
 they should work."
 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/msg/cd2b8540531fe947

I think this both summarizes the excellent level of discussion here in
lua-l and supports our early decision of providing mechanisms, not policy,
in Lua.
--lhf

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua in comp.lang.forth

Ralph Hempel
Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
John Passaniti, a lua-l old-timer, has posted this to comp.lang.forth:

 "The Lua community shows brilliantly how people can work together while
 still maintaining their diverse opinions on what objects are and how
 they should work."
 http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.forth/msg/cd2b8540531fe947

I think this both summarizes the excellent level of discussion here in
lua-l and supports our early decision of providing mechanisms, not policy,
in Lua.

I'm an old-time Forther, and was eventually driven away by the high
level of personal attacks and off-topic clutter in that group.

In my own opinion, the original beauty and clarity of Forth was ruined
when the small group controlling the language was made into a committee
that ended up throwing their personal wishes into the mix.

Lua has a very small core of language architects that appear to think
long and had before adding features or "enhancements" to the basic
language. It would be a shame if that ever changed.

This group is remarkably cooperative and full of useful information.

And as I've said before, Lua fills the niche between Forth and Lisp
quite nicely for me :-)

Cheers, Ralph




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Lua in comp.lang.forth

Richard Ranft
> Lua has a very small core of language architects that appear to think
> long and had before adding features or "enhancements" to the basic
> language.

I agree completely - if you have a solid core, the "enhancements" are
usually just sugar.  The core should provide you with what you need to do
anything you want, and Lua does.  There is no need to get fancy by adding
redundance and garbage just to satisfy critics or lazy coders.  Lua is
clean, elegant and powerful - what more do we really need?

Richard