Hi Offray, You probably know that you can develop Lua using OOP techniques, so they're not so opposite for me, at least. There is a significant difference as far as their OOP styles, however: Lua OOP is prototype-based, not class-based.
But you can fashion class(like) objects in Lua and program as though classes existed -- albeit with some quirks taken into account (beyond the obvious message-vs-function call difference). The important thing is that you can enjoy the benefits of using OO design patterns with Lua. Lua has dynamic typing, every data type is first-class, it has a nil value, inheritance (via metatables), closures, coroutines, limited reflection (which you could possibly enhance through its C interface), and a nice C API for gluing other code/languages together. Much of its functionality is obtained through included external libraries (most of which are written in C). What I hope to see is a nice FFI for Pharo that allows connection to Lua code. With that, I can glue Pharo to anything... We've been using it to automate LabVIEW applications. I want to automate LabVIEW with Pharo as well. -t Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas-2 wrote > Is nice to see this similitude between Lua and Pharo. We have been using > both in the Grafoscopio[1] project, because Lua is Pandoc's default > choice for embedded scripting language, and is pretty fast on the > Abstract Syntax Tree filters. > > [1] https://mutabit.com/grafoscopio/index.en.html > > For me Lua and Pharo are kind on opposite sides of the programming > spectrum/experience but is nice to see this conceptual connections. > Hopefully we, at the local hackerspace, will be able to explore the > Lua+Pharo bridge more and showcase them here. > > Cheers, > > Offray -- Sent from: http://forum.world.st/Pharo-Smalltalk-Users-f1310670.html
