From: Sean Middleditch Date: 2001-08-25T07:47:07+09:00 Subject: [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. >