Quote:
Originally Posted by Inverness
Keep your inferior languages to yourself, obviously Python would be the better choice, its popularity speaks for itself. Utilizing Boost::Python makes it much easier to wrap C++.
|
If we are going down that road, keep your python to yourself and give me C++.
Lua is designed for embedding to begin with and there are plenty of ways to wrap C++ into lua. What makes boost.python superior to third-party lua binding libraries?
Quote:
Python implements hash tables (associative array) as the 'dict' object. You can specify dict literals using angle brackets.
e = {'key1': 'value1', 'key2': 'value2'}
print(e['key2'])
Python allows you to define many functions called by the interpreter, in this case, e['key2'] = 3 maps to e.__setitem__('key2', 3). You can quite easily take control of item or attribute lookup or other things.
|
lua, and I am pretty sure javascript as well, does these too, for what it is worth, and the associative-array data type is way more integrated into the core languages of lua and javascript as far as I can tell.
Quote:
One of the major points in favor of Python is readability, which is obviously important in Graal considering the programming experience and
amount of people that would be looking at one script.
|
This is way subjective. Show me how Python is more readable than lua. Lua's syntax is really hard to beat as far as elegance and straightfowardness go.