2 ms·
I've problems at recognizing any significant part of Lua that is better designed than Ruby, from the POV of the language itself, pretending implementations do n
by antirez 8y ago
I've problems at recognizing any significant part of Lua that is better designed than Ruby, from the POV of the language itself, pretending implementations do not exist. But this is just a personal POV so we could argue forever. I also bet that a very good subset of Ruby could be implemented with a similar-sized code base than Lua (but not at the same speed probably).
- ModernMech 8y ago> a very good subset of Ruby could be implemented with a similar-sized code base than Lua That would have to be quite the subset. The Ruby parser alone is almost 12kLOC. I've implemented entire languages in 1/10th that. https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/parse.y https://github.com/ruby/ruby/blob/trunk/parse.y
- roi 8y agomruby (http://mruby.org/ http://mruby.org/, https://github.com/mruby/mruby https://github.com/mruby/mruby) is the official attempt to do just that. Depending on what you count it's around 30-60kLOC. It has a standalone bytecode compiler, so the parser (which is "only" 6kLOC) doesn't have to be a part of the runtime.