Re: F# fsharp

> Ruby

Ruby is kind-of like LISP, except it doesn't quite have the fully
first-class-everything that LISP does. If I remember correctly, named
functions are irrevocably different from global variables referring to
lambdas, for example.

> Lua
> Hand waving about people being unable
> / unwilling to hit the ground running with Lua in 1..2 weeks

I've used Lua since version 3 (1998). I still get the colon-versus-period
thing wrong once in a while, and it takes way too long to actually hit those
cases, because there's no static checking to help out. Even JavaScript does
that part better. Really, Lua can't be really developed without a rigorous
testing framework, but then, the API that most embedded Lua runs in is
different for each case, and almost never ships with a suitable mock
alternative :-(

If you want functional, go Haskell. It has significant real-life users,
including in the financial sector.
If you want super-ultra-multi-threaded, go Erlang.
If you want game scripting, go with whatever fits your particular needs --
which most of the time doesn't include having to include a JavaScript
runtime (V8, SpiderMonkey, etc), or a CLR runtime (Mono, Microsoft .NET).
But sometimes it does, I guess.

Sincerely,

jw




--
Americans might object: there is no way we would sacrifice our living
standards for the benefit of people in the rest of the world. Nevertheless,
whether we get there willingly or not, we shall soon have lower consumption
rates, because our present rates are unsustainable.



On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 11:53 PM, Bill Kelly <[email protected]> wrote:

> Brandon Van Every wrote:
> >
> > Ruby is not dumbed down.  My main objection to Ruby is it's so slow.
> > Worse than Python slow.  Also its historical center is Ruby on Rails,
> > and as I said, I don't care about the web.
>
> A small quibble.  Rails and the web have nothing to do with Ruby's
> _historical_ center.  Ruby is a general purpose language I've enjoyed
> using for ten years now.  Rails is merely an application written in
> Ruby.  Rails didn't exist prior to 2004.
>
> I think many of us who had been using Ruby for many years before RoR
> existed, have viewed the inclusion of "Ruby" in the name Ruby on Rails
> as something of a mixed blessing.  Perhaps the popularity of the
> Rails application helped call attention to Ruby the language.  But on
> the other hand, it also causes confusion.  We regularly get posts on
> the ruby-talk mailing list from newcomers who believe that Ruby *is*
> Rails.  When in fact, Rails is merely one of many web framework
> applications that happen to be written in Ruby (and not even my first
> choice.)  And there is nothing inherently web-centric about Ruby the
> language.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sweng-Gamedev mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.midnightryder.com/listinfo.cgi/sweng-gamedev-midnightryder.com
>

_______________________________________________
Sweng-Gamedev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.midnightryder.com/listinfo.cgi/sweng-gamedev-midnightryder.com