I think you are wrong. Just implement FLISL it shouldn't be too hard and it shouldn't take up too much memory if you implement it good. I guess if you really wanted to, someone could implement FLISL in Lua, but that would just make it slow.
1 - you dont have to _implement_ lua, you just drop it in.
2 - lua is well know, works and is awesome.
3 - lua has been proven, bug tested and used far and wide
4 - lua has a small footprint
5 - lua has a well known C/C++ binding API for integration
6 - flisl syntax looks like garbage
7 - flisl is unknown
8 - flisl has no public implementation
9 - flisl has no public documention beyond a weak specification
10 - flisl has no documented C/C++ bindings API
11 - if you want forth, use forth, why create some slightly different dialect of forth?
12 - why would you want to implement flisl on top of lua? flisl doesnt offer you anything at all.
13 - flisl is way too low level for a scripting lanauge, requiring a boatload more work on the base level to get anything like lua's functionality
I just realised you wrote flisl. I looked over your spec, it doesnt seem to offer anything at all over basic forth.
There is nothing about flisl that looking over the spec or examples that says "win" over lua.
Maybe you should implement flisl first, then try and do some REAL example code in it. nested tables/arrays/hashes, anonymous functions, global vs local scope binding, fully functional / function passing, etc
(If you want modern forth, I suggest you look at factor).
Show Posts
