4 ms·

I hear this opinion a lot. What exactly is the characteristic(s) that is missing from a scripting language? IDE integration? The compile-time checking before ru

I hear this opinion a lot. What exactly is the characteristic(s) that is missing from a scripting language? IDE integration? The compile-time checking before running? Seems like these problems largely have solutions these days. With stuff like JSdoc annotations or TypeScript, or Teal in Lua land, language servers for most languages etc, unit testing. They might be solved _better_ in a lot of compiled languages, but it's not like it's the Wild West if you're using a scripting language, and you could argue the more modern design in some of them are a fair trade-off for the native compile checking.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
_0w8t 5y ago
With Typescript you need to add an extra compilation step. With that one can just as well not to embed JavaScript but write in the original language. Teal has an advantage that the typed language can be translated into Lua at runtime so during development it allows for quick prototyping and adding types when the amount of types becomes substantial. But its type system is less powerful than that of TypeScript.
- amq 5y ago
  You can use ts-node to avoid the compilation step with typescript.
  - scns 5y ago
    Or Deno. But only on the back end.
cies 5y ago
I do not prefer "scripting", but dynamic typing + poor language design. There are dyn typed langs with langs with nice designs. I like Ruby and IOScript. All lisp-like languages. And there are several dyn typed fit-for-embedded langs implemented in Rust that are very promising. This is very much my own opinion, I know. But reading the article's "cons of Lua" I immediately remembered my fight with that language. Personally I prefer typed languages nowadays. The stronger the better, as long as there is good IDE support.