Re: Interpreted language(s) in the base

"C. P. Ghost" <cpghost_at_cordula.ws> writes:
> After all LISP-like syntax is *still* more common and prevalent
> than Lua, e.g. in Elisp, guile, esh, scsh and a lot of other apps
> that use it as a small language. So we can expect more users
> to be at least partially familiar with it. And there *are* lightweight
> MIT- or BSD-licensed scheme interpreters out there too:

Considering that the majority of people who might be interested in using
this know *neither* Lisp *nor* Lua, my vote is for Lua, because people
who are familiar with neither will be more open to learning Lua, which
resembles other languages they already know, than Lisp, which doesn't.

DES
-- 
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des_at_des.no