Profoundly clueless rant. Most of it superficial nonsense about cosmetics, not even worth responding to. In the few places you discuss something semantically meaningful, you get it utterly wrong. For instance, #4, you're apparently unaware that local denotes *scope*, and has nothing whatsoever to do with helping the parser distinguish comparison from assignment.
The bottom line is that Lua is a much better language than JavaScript. It has proper lexical scoping, proper tail calls, a powerful metaprogramming facility, coroutines, and much more.
That you didn't get this from your 10-minute evaluation in the interactive interpreter is no surprise. Nor, I guess, is your resulting overconfidence in your understanding (see: Dunning-Kruger).
Slashdot Mirror
Profoundly clueless rant. Most of it superficial nonsense about cosmetics, not even worth responding to. In the few places you discuss something semantically meaningful, you get it utterly wrong. For instance, #4, you're apparently unaware that local denotes *scope*, and has nothing whatsoever to do with helping the parser distinguish comparison from assignment.
The bottom line is that Lua is a much better language than JavaScript. It has proper lexical scoping, proper tail calls, a powerful metaprogramming facility, coroutines, and much more.
That you didn't get this from your 10-minute evaluation in the interactive interpreter is no surprise. Nor, I guess, is your resulting overconfidence in your understanding (see: Dunning-Kruger).