[ruby-talk:20318] Re: Backwards language

Originally I was using LUA for my embedding stuff, but I switched to
Ruby.  Lua development is a lot like Perl - a language was developed,
than features like Object Orientation was put into it later (perhaps as
an afterthough).

Not to mention that LUA, although it was used in a few major commercial
applications, hasn't been all that accepted - Bioware, who did Baldur's
Gate (a game that used LUA) has since replaced it with something else in
it's more recent titles (like Neverwinter Nights).  The LUA backend is
really nice, I definitely like the way it worked, even it's weird method
of object oriented programming, but it's actual syntax/language seemed a
bit weird to me.  But it's not a good language for non/first-time
programmers.  It's good when only the developer's (and programmers) are
working with it, but not when the average joe-consumer wants to use it
to make "mods" for his favorite game.  Hell, I'm surprised Quake-C was
as used as it was.  But it resembled a well known and well documented
language.

On 25 Aug 2001 06:51:44 +0900, Niklas Frykholm wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 04:33:51AM +0900, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > If anyone is curious as to why I'm even bothering with this, it is because
> > no embeddable language I've encountered has met my expectation of being (a)
> > easy to embed, (b) fast, (c) easy on the script programmer.  Although, I
> > will admit, Ruby is the best I've seen to date, and it's what I'm currently
> > using as an embedded language.
> 
> If you haven't already, I suggest you take a look at Lua. It seems to have
> been designed with the same goals: to serve as a light-weight extension
> language. It was used (modified) by Grim Fandango and Baldur's Gate, among
> others. 
> 
> Check it out and see if it is what you need. Personally, I think it is very
> well designed. The only thing I wish is that they would have made variables
> local rather than global by default.
>