4 ms·

If you are considering using this, please consider using Lua instead. Lua has decent performance on its own, great performance for a scripting language when usi

If you are considering using this, please consider using Lua instead. Lua has decent performance on its own, great performance for a scripting language when using LuaJIT, plays well with others, is insanely embeddable, and is much easier to learn and work with. No language is perfect, but Javascript is a bit mediocre.

Aldo_MX 12y ago
You are making assumptions about the needs of a project to endorse your favorite language. Remember that languages are tools, not sport teams. There are needs that completely disregard any of the benefits you mentioned with lua, for example: a) How can Lua help me run existing JavaScript code? b) Why is Lua more cost-effective than embeddable JavaScript interpreters considering the following: 1. the cost of learning how to embed and work with the Lua interpreter 2. the cost of learning the scripting language with all its implications: a different syntax, a different way to work enforced by its standard library (ex. 1-indexed arrays), new quirks (ex. commenting nested arrays), etc. 3. the cost of training people from other areas which are already accustomed to JavaScript
- justincormack 12y ago
  (a) Tessel produced a pretty complete open source JS to Lua converter, which runs node[1] (b) People are not dumb, they can learn Lua. It is easier than learning JavaScript. [1] https://github.com/tessel/colony-compiler https://github.com/tessel/colony-compiler
  - j_s 12y ago
    Tessel also implemented a JS runtime incorporating LuaJIT, though they since chosen V8. https://github.com/tessel/runtime https://github.com/tessel/runtime https://tessel.io/blog/102381339917/a-new-engine-for-your-tessel https://tessel.io/blog/102381339917/a-new-engine-for-your-te...
  - Aldo_MX 12y ago
    > (b) People are not dumb, they can learn Lua. It is easier than learning JavaScript. I was not saying that people is dumb, I was saying that learning it requires extra time and effort, and that increases the cost of a project.
- amelius 12y ago
  Also, how can we run Lua in the browser? And how does it compare to "native" javascript in terms of performance?

Aldo_MX 12y ago

You are making assumptions about the needs of a project to endorse your favorite language. Remember that languages are tools, not sport teams. There are needs that completely disregard any of the benefits you mentioned with lua, for example: a) How can Lua help me run existing JavaScript code? b) Why is Lua more cost-effective than embeddable JavaScript interpreters considering the following: 1. the cost of learning how to embed and work with the Lua interpreter 2. the cost of learning the scripting language with all its implications: a different syntax, a different way to work enforced by its standard library (ex. 1-indexed arrays), new quirks (ex. commenting nested arrays), etc. 3. the cost of training people from other areas which are already accustomed to JavaScript

justincormack 12y ago
(a) Tessel produced a pretty complete open source JS to Lua converter, which runs node[1] (b) People are not dumb, they can learn Lua. It is easier than learning JavaScript. [1] https://github.com/tessel/colony-compiler https://github.com/tessel/colony-compiler
- j_s 12y ago
  Tessel also implemented a JS runtime incorporating LuaJIT, though they since chosen V8. https://github.com/tessel/runtime https://github.com/tessel/runtime https://tessel.io/blog/102381339917/a-new-engine-for-your-tessel https://tessel.io/blog/102381339917/a-new-engine-for-your-te...
- Aldo_MX 12y ago
  > (b) People are not dumb, they can learn Lua. It is easier than learning JavaScript. I was not saying that people is dumb, I was saying that learning it requires extra time and effort, and that increases the cost of a project.
amelius 12y ago
Also, how can we run Lua in the browser? And how does it compare to "native" javascript in terms of performance?