11 comments

[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 36.4 ms ] thread
I thought Lua was already a toy programming language?
This seems to add nothing to the discussion. I downvoted it.
Far from it, it makes for a fantastic scripting language that is incredibly extensible and works well in a lot of embedded spaces.
You must not have looked beyond the Pascal-inspired syntax. There is a whole host of features that many popular languages do not have, while being many times smaller and amiable to embedding.

Ephemeron tables, generational GC, coroutines, tail call elimination, operator overloading, lexical scoping.

What's the point of implementing a language that is less powerful than the one you are using to implement it?
Granting the (problematic) idea that more powerful is always better—to learn the techniques that will be used to build more powerful languages?
It's a toy project. It's for fun, learning, and stimulating new ideas that can be applied to "real" projects.
To learn how LPeg works, and how interpreters work in general, so you can make more powerful languages later.
The world's best programming languages weren't made in a day. Got to start somewhere mate
If you don't get it then I feel sorry for you.
As wrong-headed a question as you're ever likely to find in a computer language discussion.

Guess what? Every language is implemented in a more powerful language. That is just the nature of things.

The point is to make the power available in other ways, which may - or may not - be more friendly to the intended user.