Comment by spacechild1

Comment by spacechild1 16 hours ago

> it feels like it departs from what people know without good reasons.

Lua is a pretty old language. In 1993 the world had not really settled on C style syntax. Compared to Perl or Tcl, Lua's syntax seems rather conventional.

Some design decisions might be a bit unusual, but overall the language feels very consistent and predictable. JS is a mess in comparison.

> because it departs from a more Algol-like syntax

Huh? Lua's syntax is actually very Algol-like since it uses keywords to delimit blocks (e.g. if ... then ... end)

lucketone 16 hours ago

I known for very long time that c (and co) inherited the syntax from algol.

But only after long time I tried to check what Algol actually looked like. To my surprise, Algol does not look anything like C to me.

I would be quite interested in the expanded version of “C has inherited syntax from Algol”

Edit: apparently the inheritance from Algol is a formula: lexical scoping + value returning functions (expression based) - parenthesitis. Only last item is about visual part of the syntax.

Algol alternatives were: cobol, fortan, lisp, apl.

Reply View 1 reply

spacechild1 15 hours ago

The use of curly braces for delimiting blocks of code actually comes from BCPL.
Of course, C also inherited syntax from Algol, but so did most languages.

Reply View | 0 replies

lioeters 16 hours ago

> consistent and predictable

That's what matters to me, not how similar Lua is to other languages, but that the language is well-designed in its own system of rules and conventions. It makes sense, every part of it contributes to a harmonious whole. JavaScript on the other hand.

When speaking of Algol or C-style syntax, it makes me imagine a "Common C" syntax, like taking the best, or the least common denominator, of all C-like languages. A minimal subset that fits in your head, instead of what modern C is turning out to be, not to mention C++ or Rust.

Reply View 8 replies

procaryote 15 hours ago

Is modern C really much more complicated than old C? C++ is a mess of course.

Reply View | 7 replies
- lioeters 15 hours ago
  
  I don't write modern C for daily use, so I can't really say. But I've been re-learning and writing C99 more these days, not professionally but personal use - and I appreciate the smallness of the language. Might even say C peaked at C99. I mean, I'd be crazy to say that C-like languages after C99, like Java, PHP, etc., are all misguided for how unnecessarily big and complex they are. It might be that I'm becoming more like a caveman programmer as I get older, I prefer dumb primitive tools.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  procaryote 5 hours ago
  
  C11 adds a couple of nice things like static asserts which I use sometimes to document assumptions I make.
  They did add some optional sections like bounds checking that seem to have flopped, partly for being optional, partly for being half-baked. Having optional sections in general seems like a bad idea.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
- anthk 5 hours ago
  
  IDK about C11; but C99 doesn't change a lot compared to ANSI C. You can read The C Programming Language 2nd edition and pick up C99 in a week. It adds boleans, some float/complex math ops, an optional floating point definition and a few more goodies:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C99
  C++ by comparison it's a behemoth. If C++ died and, for instance, the FLTK guys rebased their libraries into C (and Boost for instance) it would be a big loss at first but Chromium and the like rewritten in C would slim down a bit, the complexity would plummet down and similar projects would use far less CPU and RAM.
  It's not just about the binary size; C++ today makes even the Common Lisp standard (even with UIOP and some de facto standard libraries from QuickLisp) pretty much human-manageable, and CL always has been a one-thousand pages thick standard with tons of bloat compared to Scheme or it's sibling Emacs Lisp. Go figure.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  procaryote 4 hours ago
  
  C++ is a katamari ball of programming trends and half baked ideas. I get why google built golang, as they were already pretty strict about what parts of the c++ sediments you were allowed to use.
  
  Reply View | 1 reply
  
  anthk 5 minutes ago
  
  Not Google actually, but the same people from C, AWK and Unix (and 9front, which is "Unix 2.0" and it has a simpler C (no POSIX bloat there) and the compilers are basically the philosophy of Golang (cross compile from any to any arch, CSP concurrency...)
  Also, the Limbo language it's basically pre-Go.
  
  Reply View | 0 replies