This is a largely academic debate so apologies to other list readers for being
off-topic.
On Sun, 26 May 2013 21:47:45 +0200
Juan Pedro Bolívar Puente wrote:
> > What makes you say that? I see you have experience in just about
> > every interpreter expect Lua (btw I live next door in Valencia if
Hi Thomas,
> Nice approach, Christian!
Thanks!
> while looking at the scripts, i thought it will be good to have something
> like this, it will reduce code and make it more readable.
That was my plan. :)
> I see two sides here. The (hopefully complete) API that mixxx provides
> (connect etc),
> I didn't mean to start a language pissing contest... but it looks
> like I did :)
Sorry my message was a bit harsh... I did not mean to dismerit Lua. But
lets make some comments...
>> Lua does not meet the realtime constraints neither anyway.
>
> What makes you say that? I see you have exper
Nice approach, Christian!
while looking at the scripts, i thought it will be good to have something
like this, it will reduce code and make it more readable.
I see two sides here. The (hopefully complete) API that mixxx provides
(connect etc), some built-in convenience functions and the same fre
On Sun, 26 May 2013 16:52:59 +0200
Juan Pedro Bolívar Puente wrote:
> I disagree.
I didn't mean to start a language pissing contest... but it looks like I did :)
> First, there is nothing intrinsically "more performant" in Lua than in
> JavaScript -- they are both dynamically typed languages wi
I disagree.
First, there is nothing intrinsically "more performant" in Lua than in
JavaScript -- they are both dynamically typed languages with objects and
first-class functions. Also, there is a wide choice of VMs in in
Javascript. While QtScript uses the webkit JS engine, which is fairly
g
Lua and JavaScript are very very similar. I'm a big fan of Lua and
would support a switch to that language. I don't know anything about
Coffeescript. I don't have a problem with JavaScript, though.
Neale
(soon-to-be maintainer of four Hercules mappings)
---
