4 ms·
The really interesting language in that comparison is LuaJIT. It is faster and more concise than Javascript. It's sad that a mature, small, concise language lik
by FraaJad 16y ago
The really interesting language in that comparison is LuaJIT. It is faster and more concise than Javascript. It's sad that a mature, small, concise language like Lua doesn't have more traction outside niches.
- compay 16y agoI really enjoy working with Lua, though the opportunities have been infrequent. While Node.js looks like a wonderful piece of technology, every time I hear about it I feel a bit bitter that yet another opportunity to popularize Lua has been missed.
- pygy_ 16y agoLua fails in the "batteries included" domain. It is first and foremost developed as an extension language. Furthermore, they are not really trying to promote the language beyond its current niches. That said, there are good third party libraries and frameworks, and a Rubygems-like system called Lua Rocks.
- krakensden 16y agoyeah, but so does Javascript
- brehaut 16y agoBut the one battery that is included in JS makes it unavoidable, and most programmers (the kind that don't read HN or proggit) are the kind to not want to learn another language. If you have the choice between using the quirky thing you know or learning something else, its a good bet most programmers will choose to use the tool the know, quality of the respective tools be damned ;)
- krakensden 16y ago"Batteries included" refers to a comprehensive standard library, which Javascript doesn't have. The fact that Javascript is an in important feature in software that everyone runs is a whole different kind of advantage.
- beagle3 16y agoAn included Web Browser with 99.99% of JavaScript interpreters is a pretty big battery.