Niklas (r2d2 / umu.se) wrote on 8/25/01 at 9:50AM:
> On Sat, Aug 25, 2001 at 07:47:07AM +0900, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > Ruby.  Lua development is a lot like Perl - a language was developed,
> > than features like Object Orientation was put into it later (perhaps as
> > an afterthough).
> 
> Lua's object orientation is a lot better than Perl's, and much easier
> to learn, but it's true that it is not an integral part of the language.
> Lua is "the right size" if you expect the scripts to be small, and not
> (for example) define their own classes and subclasses. For programming
> in the large Ruby or Python are much better.

tomsrtbt (Tom's Root Boot Disk) recently adopted Lua as a scripting language for his single floppy Linux distribution.

In my case, I considered using Ruby for my implementation of the Linux Router Project single floppy Linux; however, at a size of about 400k Ruby is way too big, and in this way at least, shares this attribute with Perl.

Lua, on the other hand, has the ability to contain an entire interpreter with POSIX file functions and networking functions (both add-ons) in about 100k.  This compares quite favorably with ash, which was about 90k.

There were other considerations, and as such, I didn't go with Lua, but want to use it more and more.  It's too bad Ruby doesn't come in a 70k version; I thought eRuby (embedded Ruby) would be an answer but it seems some have different ideas of what "embedded" means.  To me "embedded" means - NO memory space, NO storage space, and keep it SMALL.  But anyway...