This appears to be a pile of syntactic sugar on top of Lua, which is an idea which would have appealed to me a lot as a younger developer. But the older I get the more I realize that its almost never actually syntax or brevity that gets in the way in a software project and that this sort of thing often introduces a lot of cognitive overhead. It isn't that these extra doodads are hard to wrap your head around, but the fact that we have two very similar languages (Pluto, Lua) that we are interactive with on a regular basis (because Pluto works within the Lua ecosystem) and now we have to think about that a lot.
I think a lot of programmers when they first learn Lisp go crazy with macros, adding all sorts of flimflam to their programs because they can, but then eventually you realize that just makes life harder, or at least marginally more complicated, and you gradually give it up. Feels like a similar calculation could apply here.
Absolutely agree. In my experience, languages that have multiple forms of syntax for doing the same thing are just laborious to read.
Kotlin has some great ideas, but it's kind of frustrating to have half my code yellow-highlighted because the IDE has detected that there's a short-hand version of everything.
I feel like good syntactic sugar should reduce cognitive load.
for example in JavaScript
let fish = 5
let cheese = 27
let nop = 0x4e71
being able to do
result = {fish,cheese,nop}
Is 'only' syntatic sugar but significantly reduces the cognitive load over
result = {fish:fish,cheese:cheese,nope:nop}
looking at the latter it is harder to take in the options at a glance, when reviewing you have to check if the names match. If they don't match was it intentional or accidental. Whereas if you encountered
result = {fish,cheese,nope:nop}
You are left with no doubt that the nope is not a typo but a explicit name specifier.
I don't know, from my point of view having both syntaxes is clearly more to think about, and all you get from the shorter one is typing a few fewer keystrokes.
Philosophically, I feel a little ambivalent about the briefer syntax because it mixes two sorts of denotations. Variables refer to scoped objects for which, from the point of view of what the program means, vanish (in compiled languages they literally can totally vanish - variable references are just resolved into the appropriate reference to memory). The keys of a hash table are totally different sorts of things and persist at runtime. I'd prefer that these two very distinct conceptual spaces remain separate, even if in a certain sense they overlap in a specific case.
>I don't know, from my point of view having both syntaxes is clearly more to think about
That's storage, not load. You need you know more, but you don't have to think about as much at any one time.
BrainFuck has extremely simple operations. You don't have to think about very many different things at all, but you need to think about them a lot.
>and all you get from the shorter one is typing a few fewer keystrokes.
I'm not particularly concerned about keystrokes (unless I'm golfing). I'm happy to increase the size of the content to reduce how much I think about it. Reducing the number of elements I have to look at to grasp the same concept is distinct from keystrokes.
I like the idea of bundling Lua with bunch of batteries but the syntactic changes go too far. They seem to be lousily designed attempt at turning Lua into Typescript.
For example coalescing operator. You can do the same in standard Lua with or. Pipe operator might seem like cool idea, but the language needs to be designed around it (Elixir) or you need multiple variants (threading macros in Lisps).
Yeah, there are a lot of odd inclusions like that; things that overlap or replace standard lua flow for no reason (see ternary expressions[0]). I would love an expanded lua, with built-in classes and a more robust standard library, but this feels more like a rewrite into a new langauge with two vastly different design philosophies layered awkwardly on top of each other. Which it is I guess.
I don't mean to discount the work that has gone into it, and there are a lot of really neat features here. But honestly I think it would be stronger as a standalone thing, without all the lua baggage, given how far idiomatic pluto diverges from idiomatic lua.
local function report(result)
print(result ?? "The value was nil.")
end
report(filesize("/path/to/file/of/length/zero"))
If filesize returns nil for file-not-found and the length otherwise. Wouldn't coalescing work and or would not be able to identify existing but empty files.
As a TypeScript fan, I was really happy to read pretty much every one of these changes. This is a language I wouldn't personally use unless it gains massive traction, but one that I hope it gains massive traction so that I can justify spending the time memorizing and learning all these new language additions.
It's particularly exciting that they constantly rebase upstream Lua, and plan to update it to be compatible with Lua 5.5. Especially because Lua 5.5 finally has the ability to turn off globals!
Lot's of good stuff in there. My personal highlights:
1. classes
2. named parameters with default values
3. string interpolation
I love Lua, but it's a bit sad that everyone ends up hacking together their own OOP system (including myself). I would really prefer a standardized solution.
Named parameters are such an underrated feature IMO. It makes function calls so much easier to read, in particular if the arguments all have the same type. I know, we can "fake" named arguments by passing a single table argument, but this has some overhead and default values are still rather awkward to implement. The one big downside of named parameters is that the parameter names are now part of the public API.
Would general-purpose programming include making a Graphical User Interface?
A simple and small language with GUI bindings and a graphical tool for laying out a design in a flexible manner with a responsive result is something a lot of folks would find useful.
Interesting, apparently the source also includes a (modified) version of the PUC Lua VM. Why don't they just generate bytecode for the existing VM and leave it as is (unless the modified version somehow would significantly increase performance)? What changes were necessary to the original VM to implement the language?
I think that would be achievable with plain PUC Lua bytecode; it's actually just a jump. The same for default function arguments; the VM doesn't actually care how many arguments the caller pushes on stack, and providing default values is easy to implement for the caller.
i was expecting something dumb if i'm honest but it looks really nice, i would probably use this. it seems like the perfect extension of the "code vomit" speed of writing lua and moves it further in that direction imo.
the thing i like lua for is easily getting into that "flow state" of just writing code without having to think about "how should i approach this" but sometimes the lack of things which pluto addresses forces a level of verbosity that snaps me out of it. i often find myself hitting a mental roadblock where i think "like fuck am i gonna write that much code to do X, i'll just go work on a more fun part of the program and come back later".
Well written and well documented. I will be trying it out. One drawback that I see is the use of packages from LuaRocks might be an issue and one does not really want to cope with compilation issues. But Lua is a beautiful language in any form.
There's almost nothing in there that's like C or C++. But there's a definite influence of .NET and C♯ with things like null-coalescing, null-conditionals, and interpolated strings.
Is it possible to use Pluto alongside with a binding library such as Sol2[0]? I don't mind not being able to set type hints in the bindings to use in some IDE, I can create stubs for it manually.
I've heard that Lua can be configured to avoid dynamic memory allocation, potentially allowing it to be used in real-time safety critical contexts. I'm not sure if anyone has used it that way, but I wonder if Pluto retains this?
More specifically, Lua allows you to inject your own memory allocator function, so one can get Lua to use a real-time allocator like TLSF operating out of a fixed memory block in such contexts.
Seems logical to me. 1 = break the current level, 2 = break 1 level up, 3 = break 2 levels up, etc.
If you would do it the other way around, and then if you would add another for loop around the others, the breaks will break. You wouldn't expect that if you're modifying this code without looking at the current breaks or knowing about the break behavior.
If you however move the break statements inside a new for loop, at the most inner level, it would seem obvious that you have to update the break numbers.
I often wished for a multi-level break statement when I started programming. But it turns out that, most of the time, you're best served by moving that whole chunk into its own function and using "return" instead of "break outer". That amount of control flow complexity usually justifies moving into a separate function anyway.
What's poor about it, the numbers in the example? Think of them as inner/outer instead of "1" and "2". Without this kind of break statement, what do you do when you want to exit the outer loop, something like this probably:
local stop = false
for i = 1, 10 do -- outer loop
if stop then break end
for j = 1, 5 do -- inner loop
break -- to break from inner loop
stop = true; break -- to break from outer loop
end
end
So this new feature fits with the general theme of pluto being a very-sugared lua.
The reason one might find this cumbersome or problematic, is in the case of very large numbers of lines of code - sure, your example is visible and somewhat readable (arguable) in its current form - but tell me you won't have issues when the loop is 80 or 100 lines of code, and you need to add another inner loop as part of the development process.
Are you now going to go through and be sure all your breaks are numbered properly? Are you really, though?
Better, imho, would have been to introduce labels and "break <label>", but even that is going to cause more headaches than its worth.
Ultimately, one shouldn't write such horrid code anyway.
"Pluto aspires to be a version of Lua with a larger feature-set, that is all. Pluto is not a Lua-killer, an attempted successor, or any of that. Many people (rightly so) love Lua precisely because of the design philosophy. And fundamentally, Pluto is a major deviation from Lua's design philosophy. Some may prefer this, some may not."
This appears to be a pile of syntactic sugar on top of Lua, which is an idea which would have appealed to me a lot as a younger developer. But the older I get the more I realize that its almost never actually syntax or brevity that gets in the way in a software project and that this sort of thing often introduces a lot of cognitive overhead. It isn't that these extra doodads are hard to wrap your head around, but the fact that we have two very similar languages (Pluto, Lua) that we are interactive with on a regular basis (because Pluto works within the Lua ecosystem) and now we have to think about that a lot.
I think a lot of programmers when they first learn Lisp go crazy with macros, adding all sorts of flimflam to their programs because they can, but then eventually you realize that just makes life harder, or at least marginally more complicated, and you gradually give it up. Feels like a similar calculation could apply here.
Absolutely agree. In my experience, languages that have multiple forms of syntax for doing the same thing are just laborious to read.
Kotlin has some great ideas, but it's kind of frustrating to have half my code yellow-highlighted because the IDE has detected that there's a short-hand version of everything.
I feel like good syntactic sugar should reduce cognitive load.
for example in JavaScript
being able to do Is 'only' syntatic sugar but significantly reduces the cognitive load over looking at the latter it is harder to take in the options at a glance, when reviewing you have to check if the names match. If they don't match was it intentional or accidental. Whereas if you encountered You are left with no doubt that the nope is not a typo but a explicit name specifier.I don't know, from my point of view having both syntaxes is clearly more to think about, and all you get from the shorter one is typing a few fewer keystrokes.
Philosophically, I feel a little ambivalent about the briefer syntax because it mixes two sorts of denotations. Variables refer to scoped objects for which, from the point of view of what the program means, vanish (in compiled languages they literally can totally vanish - variable references are just resolved into the appropriate reference to memory). The keys of a hash table are totally different sorts of things and persist at runtime. I'd prefer that these two very distinct conceptual spaces remain separate, even if in a certain sense they overlap in a specific case.
Doesn't really matter, though.
>I don't know, from my point of view having both syntaxes is clearly more to think about
That's storage, not load. You need you know more, but you don't have to think about as much at any one time.
BrainFuck has extremely simple operations. You don't have to think about very many different things at all, but you need to think about them a lot.
>and all you get from the shorter one is typing a few fewer keystrokes.
I'm not particularly concerned about keystrokes (unless I'm golfing). I'm happy to increase the size of the content to reduce how much I think about it. Reducing the number of elements I have to look at to grasp the same concept is distinct from keystrokes.
Sometimes
is better than one the other hand I'd take overLow key this is so interesting because in Elixir there was this specific example with a library that extended the lang to do this.
The concise syntax was tossed out, but I have a soft spot for it.
[dead]
I like the idea of bundling Lua with bunch of batteries but the syntactic changes go too far. They seem to be lousily designed attempt at turning Lua into Typescript.
For example coalescing operator. You can do the same in standard Lua with or. Pipe operator might seem like cool idea, but the language needs to be designed around it (Elixir) or you need multiple variants (threading macros in Lisps).
Yeah, there are a lot of odd inclusions like that; things that overlap or replace standard lua flow for no reason (see ternary expressions[0]). I would love an expanded lua, with built-in classes and a more robust standard library, but this feels more like a rewrite into a new langauge with two vastly different design philosophies layered awkwardly on top of each other. Which it is I guess.
I don't mean to discount the work that has gone into it, and there are a lot of really neat features here. But honestly I think it would be stronger as a standalone thing, without all the lua baggage, given how far idiomatic pluto diverges from idiomatic lua.
[0]https://pluto-lang.org/docs/New%20Features/Ternary%20Express...
I'm not a Lua user but is this a falsiness issue?
local function report(result) print(result ?? "The value was nil.") end
report(filesize("/path/to/file/of/length/zero"))
If filesize returns nil for file-not-found and the length otherwise. Wouldn't coalescing work and or would not be able to identify existing but empty files.
As a TypeScript fan, I was really happy to read pretty much every one of these changes. This is a language I wouldn't personally use unless it gains massive traction, but one that I hope it gains massive traction so that I can justify spending the time memorizing and learning all these new language additions.
It's particularly exciting that they constantly rebase upstream Lua, and plan to update it to be compatible with Lua 5.5. Especially because Lua 5.5 finally has the ability to turn off globals!
Lot's of good stuff in there. My personal highlights:
1. classes
2. named parameters with default values
3. string interpolation
I love Lua, but it's a bit sad that everyone ends up hacking together their own OOP system (including myself). I would really prefer a standardized solution.
Named parameters are such an underrated feature IMO. It makes function calls so much easier to read, in particular if the arguments all have the same type. I know, we can "fake" named arguments by passing a single table argument, but this has some overhead and default values are still rather awkward to implement. The one big downside of named parameters is that the parameter names are now part of the public API.
In my next lua project I'm going to try and avoid oop and stick with functions and data.
I don't know why, but 100 times a day I have to go back and replace a dot with a colon and it drives me nuts.
Curious how this compares with Luau: https://luau.org
Or Luon: https://github.com/rochus-keller/Luon
Lua = OG
Luau = Performance
Pluto = Features
Luon = statically typed
Would general-purpose programming include making a Graphical User Interface?
A simple and small language with GUI bindings and a graphical tool for laying out a design in a flexible manner with a responsive result is something a lot of folks would find useful.
Interesting, apparently the source also includes a (modified) version of the PUC Lua VM. Why don't they just generate bytecode for the existing VM and leave it as is (unless the modified version somehow would significantly increase performance)? What changes were necessary to the original VM to implement the language?
Some features like break N and default function args seem to be incompatible with the vanilla lua vm.
I think that would be achievable with plain PUC Lua bytecode; it's actually just a jump. The same for default function arguments; the VM doesn't actually care how many arguments the caller pushes on stack, and providing default values is easy to implement for the caller.
i was expecting something dumb if i'm honest but it looks really nice, i would probably use this. it seems like the perfect extension of the "code vomit" speed of writing lua and moves it further in that direction imo.
the thing i like lua for is easily getting into that "flow state" of just writing code without having to think about "how should i approach this" but sometimes the lack of things which pluto addresses forces a level of verbosity that snaps me out of it. i often find myself hitting a mental roadblock where i think "like fuck am i gonna write that much code to do X, i'll just go work on a more fun part of the program and come back later".
Well written and well documented. I will be trying it out. One drawback that I see is the use of packages from LuaRocks might be an issue and one does not really want to cope with compilation issues. But Lua is a beautiful language in any form.
Basically a more convenient/intuitive Lua for JS/C/Java/C++ users, plus optional static typing. May in fact use this instead of Lua.
There's almost nothing in there that's like C or C++. But there's a definite influence of .NET and C♯ with things like null-coalescing, null-conditionals, and interpolated strings.
Yea. I am definitely trying this out too. It really has some new features changes that I wished lua had.
Is it possible to use Pluto alongside with a binding library such as Sol2[0]? I don't mind not being able to set type hints in the bindings to use in some IDE, I can create stubs for it manually.
[0]: https://github.com/ThePhD/sol2
I've heard that Lua can be configured to avoid dynamic memory allocation, potentially allowing it to be used in real-time safety critical contexts. I'm not sure if anyone has used it that way, but I wonder if Pluto retains this?
More specifically, Lua allows you to inject your own memory allocator function, so one can get Lua to use a real-time allocator like TLSF operating out of a fixed memory block in such contexts.
Well, this is a very poor design, one which makes me think what is the purpose of this project in the first place?
https://pluto-lang.org/docs/New%20Features/Break%20StatementI don't particularly dislike that design, but Lua already supports a goto target label `::label::` so I think the following syntax would work better:
Seems logical to me. 1 = break the current level, 2 = break 1 level up, 3 = break 2 levels up, etc.
If you would do it the other way around, and then if you would add another for loop around the others, the breaks will break. You wouldn't expect that if you're modifying this code without looking at the current breaks or knowing about the break behavior.
If you however move the break statements inside a new for loop, at the most inner level, it would seem obvious that you have to update the break numbers.
Adding a label to each loop and breaking by label (like in Rust) feels better and more resistant to code changes
I often wished for a multi-level break statement when I started programming. But it turns out that, most of the time, you're best served by moving that whole chunk into its own function and using "return" instead of "break outer". That amount of control flow complexity usually justifies moving into a separate function anyway.
What's poor about it, the numbers in the example? Think of them as inner/outer instead of "1" and "2". Without this kind of break statement, what do you do when you want to exit the outer loop, something like this probably:
So this new feature fits with the general theme of pluto being a very-sugared lua.This is just poor language design.
The reason one might find this cumbersome or problematic, is in the case of very large numbers of lines of code - sure, your example is visible and somewhat readable (arguable) in its current form - but tell me you won't have issues when the loop is 80 or 100 lines of code, and you need to add another inner loop as part of the development process.
Are you now going to go through and be sure all your breaks are numbered properly? Are you really, though?
Better, imho, would have been to introduce labels and "break <label>", but even that is going to cause more headaches than its worth.
Ultimately, one shouldn't write such horrid code anyway.
Ah, well said on all points and i couldn't agree more.
I guess it is inspired by De Bruijn index[1].
[^1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Bruijn_index
That's a Lua dialect so I don't know what you expect ;)
That's... interesting.
If the numeric argument to break is what you find interesting, then this is exactly the same construct as the shell's break argument:
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V...