I think an alternative is always a good idea. Java is big, is statically typed and it wasn't actually made for scripting. It was a bad idea from the start imho. Lua, on the other hand, is small, embeddable, fast, dynamic and it actually proved that it can work as an embeddable scripting language.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Chris Heilmann <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11/02/2011 14:35, Peter van der Zee wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 3:24 PM, Adrian Olaru <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm just wondering, why don't we have by now a Lua alternative to > JavaScript in the browsers? > > > > Shouldn't the question by "why do we need an alternative"? We tried Java > in the browser - that didn't work. > > -- > To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
