4 ms·

How does this compare to Lua? It seems to be going after a very similar market.

by panic 10y ago

adamnemecek 10y ago
This seems to be making some good points but I'm only reading it now https://computerscomputing.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/lua-and-squirrel-the-case-for-squirrel/ https://computerscomputing.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/lua-and-... Huh, it actually seems like an older language, it's been around for a while and it's used in some major studio games.
- pikachu_is_cool 10y ago
  To me, it looks like the only improvement of Squirrel upon Lua is automatic reference counting. Everything else seems like a step backwards. * C++ < ANSI C * two null types < one nil type * separate types for arrays and dicts < tables * C syntax < plain english * Builtin classes < make-your-own classes That's just my opinion though :)
  - yoz-y 10y ago
    I am curious, why do you consider make-your-own-classes a superior approach?
    - pikachu_is_cool 10y ago
      Having OOP built into the C/C++ codebase is just a chunk of complexity that is needlessly built into the language itself; it can only be maintained by a select group of people who understand it. Instead, you could just use an OOP library, or implement the parts of OOP you want in like 20 lines of Lua. The great thing about this is you can fine-tune it to your needs. Want transparent encapsulation, or multiple inheritance? It just takes an extra 10-20 lines of code! Now you don't have to pester the Squirrel developers to put it in. :p
      - yoz-y 10y ago
        My counter argument would be that if objects are implemented at the language level it makes it easier for developers for the following reasons: - there is exactly one way to do it - objects can be transported between codebases without wrappers - beginners know where to look and everybody can understand everybody's codebase - the compiler can optimise them better - generally the syntax is nicer, looking at some object implementations in lua I must say that they are hideous, very similar to object implementations in javascript before ES6
        pikachu_is_cool 10y ago
        There are efforts to unify OOP to be compatible across codebases: https://github.com/bartbes/Class-Commons https://github.com/bartbes/Class-Commons, but yeah I agree it is still somewhat of an issue. For the beginners thing: most beginners who use Lua don't even touch OOP. The main idea for Lua is to have concepts that are super easy for a layman to fit in their head; OOP is like this huge convoluted "idea" that has a bunch of different possible implementations and approaches. Plus... setting up the userscript/metatable structure goes a long way in abstracting it for beginners; look at how Garry's Mod does it for in-game weapons. It doesn't even use full OOP, all it has is inheritance and it doesn't even call it that; opting to call superclasses the "base" weapon. It was easy enough for me as a 12 year old non-programmer to grasp. Plus... seeing words like "class" or "constructor" would for sure deter beginners. It's not expressive enough. When I started out, I remember looking at the curly braces for a table and thinking it was some advanced programmer stuff, and I avoided it as much as possible. That feeling would probably be 10x for something like full-blown OOP. Once you force them to leave the editor to learn some concept on Wikipedia, you lost IMO. I agree with you on the optimization/syntax thing, but I think it's a necessary tradeoff. Any feature that is built into the language can get some sort of buff from that sort of stuff. I just don't think the pros outweigh the cons... Lua isn't the kind of language to leverage OOP much (other than inheritance). For me, this is pretty much the extent of OOP I've needed in Lua (along with transparent encapsulation, but I cut that code out because it would add around 10-15 more lines): OBJECT = {} function OBJECT:new() local obj = {} setmetatable(obj, {__index = self}) return obj end local subclass = OBJECT:new() This, combined with tables and closures, has suited me just fine.
  - jwdunne 10y ago
    How is separate types for arrays and dictionaries worse? They are two different data structures with different uses so should be separate.
    - pikachu_is_cool 10y ago
      One of the strengths of Lua is how usable it is for non-programmers. Having separate concepts for (essentially) a hashmap for integers and a hashmap for everything else makes it more complicated.
  - emsy 10y ago
    That C++ is inherently worse than C is a preposterous preconception. The only point I'd remotely agree with is the two null types, though it makes sense if you know that they express two different concepts.
    - pikachu_is_cool 10y ago
      I was referring to portability. Being written in ANSI C is one of Lua's biggest strengths in that regard.
- sdegutis 10y ago
  Wow. Reading that renewed my excitement for programming language design and implementation! But with 5 kids, I'm kept pretty busy and won't really have time for that kind of thing until I'm retired. And I have no real need for it, it would just be really fun. But still...
slezyr 10y ago
Do you need OOP? Then Squirrel. No? Use lua.
- pikachu_is_cool 10y ago
  Lua supports OOP, it can be written in < 20 lines of code. It's just not built-in.

How does this compare to Lua? It seems to be going after a very similar market.

by panic 10y ago

How does this compare to Lua? It seems to be going after a very similar market.

This seems to be making some good points but I'm only reading it now https://computerscomputing.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/lua-and-squirrel-the-case-for-squirrel/ https://computerscomputing.wordpress.com/2013/02/18/lua-and-... Huh, it actually seems like an older language, it's been around for a while and it's used in some major studio games.

pikachu_is_cool 10y ago
To me, it looks like the only improvement of Squirrel upon Lua is automatic reference counting. Everything else seems like a step backwards. * C++ < ANSI C * two null types < one nil type * separate types for arrays and dicts < tables * C syntax < plain english * Builtin classes < make-your-own classes That's just my opinion though :)
- yoz-y 10y ago
  I am curious, why do you consider make-your-own-classes a superior approach?
  - pikachu_is_cool 10y ago
    Having OOP built into the C/C++ codebase is just a chunk of complexity that is needlessly built into the language itself; it can only be maintained by a select group of people who understand it. Instead, you could just use an OOP library, or implement the parts of OOP you want in like 20 lines of Lua. The great thing about this is you can fine-tune it to your needs. Want transparent encapsulation, or multiple inheritance? It just takes an extra 10-20 lines of code! Now you don't have to pester the Squirrel developers to put it in. :p
    - yoz-y 10y ago
      My counter argument would be that if objects are implemented at the language level it makes it easier for developers for the following reasons: - there is exactly one way to do it - objects can be transported between codebases without wrappers - beginners know where to look and everybody can understand everybody's codebase - the compiler can optimise them better - generally the syntax is nicer, looking at some object implementations in lua I must say that they are hideous, very similar to object implementations in javascript before ES6
      - pikachu_is_cool 10y ago
        There are efforts to unify OOP to be compatible across codebases: https://github.com/bartbes/Class-Commons https://github.com/bartbes/Class-Commons, but yeah I agree it is still somewhat of an issue. For the beginners thing: most beginners who use Lua don't even touch OOP. The main idea for Lua is to have concepts that are super easy for a layman to fit in their head; OOP is like this huge convoluted "idea" that has a bunch of different possible implementations and approaches. Plus... setting up the userscript/metatable structure goes a long way in abstracting it for beginners; look at how Garry's Mod does it for in-game weapons. It doesn't even use full OOP, all it has is inheritance and it doesn't even call it that; opting to call superclasses the "base" weapon. It was easy enough for me as a 12 year old non-programmer to grasp. Plus... seeing words like "class" or "constructor" would for sure deter beginners. It's not expressive enough. When I started out, I remember looking at the curly braces for a table and thinking it was some advanced programmer stuff, and I avoided it as much as possible. That feeling would probably be 10x for something like full-blown OOP. Once you force them to leave the editor to learn some concept on Wikipedia, you lost IMO. I agree with you on the optimization/syntax thing, but I think it's a necessary tradeoff. Any feature that is built into the language can get some sort of buff from that sort of stuff. I just don't think the pros outweigh the cons... Lua isn't the kind of language to leverage OOP much (other than inheritance). For me, this is pretty much the extent of OOP I've needed in Lua (along with transparent encapsulation, but I cut that code out because it would add around 10-15 more lines): OBJECT = {} function OBJECT:new() local obj = {} setmetatable(obj, {__index = self}) return obj end local subclass = OBJECT:new() This, combined with tables and closures, has suited me just fine.
- jwdunne 10y ago
  How is separate types for arrays and dictionaries worse? They are two different data structures with different uses so should be separate.
  - pikachu_is_cool 10y ago
    One of the strengths of Lua is how usable it is for non-programmers. Having separate concepts for (essentially) a hashmap for integers and a hashmap for everything else makes it more complicated.
- emsy 10y ago
  That C++ is inherently worse than C is a preposterous preconception. The only point I'd remotely agree with is the two null types, though it makes sense if you know that they express two different concepts.
  - pikachu_is_cool 10y ago
    I was referring to portability. Being written in ANSI C is one of Lua's biggest strengths in that regard.
sdegutis 10y ago
Wow. Reading that renewed my excitement for programming language design and implementation! But with 5 kids, I'm kept pretty busy and won't really have time for that kind of thing until I'm retired. And I have no real need for it, it would just be really fun. But still...

slezyr 10y ago

Do you need OOP? Then Squirrel. No? Use lua.

pikachu_is_cool 10y ago
Lua supports OOP, it can be written in < 20 lines of code. It's just not built-in.