11–20 of 33 posts
fn contains(range: &AddrRange, addr: &IpAddr) -> bool {
range.min Syntax is not everything, but it also shows that people too easily think they are great at language design when they really aren't. It's fascinating to watch how people continue with such an approach. How many people are going to use that over, say, python?
Maybe the authors are here to answer this. The syntax is of course very Rusty, which is cool. However, a sort of obvious question comes to mind - what is the benefit of this over just writing rust, then? Just because the compile times are shorter? EDIT: should mention I understand why embedded scripting languages exist, having embedded Lua many times. And I love a lot of these features, but to me having an embedded s…
Maybe the authors are here to answer this. The syntax is of course very Rusty, which is cool. However, a sort of obvious question comes to mind - what is the benefit of this over just writing rust, then? Just because the compile times are shorter? EDIT: should mention I understand why embedded scripting languages exist, having embedded Lua many times. And I love a lot of these features, but to me having an embedded s…
Maybe the authors are here to answer this. The syntax is of course very Rusty, which is cool. However, a sort of obvious question comes to mind - what is the benefit of this over just writing rust, then? Just because the compile times are shorter? EDIT: should mention I understand why embedded scripting languages exist, having embedded Lua many times. And I love a lot of these features, but to me having an embedded s…
In our setup, the "sources" are more like configuration. Whereas the core, the business logic, is more like code.
Typically, one would configure with e.g. YAML. As we can see in many projects, that have a DSL, in yaml (k9s, GitHub actions, ansible, etc). But, rather than inventing another DSL in yaml, we realized we do need some logic, something very poorly expressed in yaml. And we went for Lua.
Long story to say: if your config typically has some logic in it, it makes sense to go for an embedded scripting language to provide it, rather than building it into the core domain, or to invent yet-another-yaml-amalgation (yayamla?)
The syntax is of course attractive (coming from Rust), and I'd love to replace more of my posix scripts with something saner. I struggle understanding whether the utility of having language literals for IP addresses, IP prefixes, and AS numbers is worth it though [0]. It seems like the confusion added by having custom built-ins like this for one particular domain, in addition to the unclear scoping (what could later…
Hi! Author here. We are actually planning on removing those literals and allowing applications to extend Roto with their own literals [0]. They should do so with care of course, because indeed adding more literals adds some edge cases. Most applications should be able to get by without any special literals though. [0]: https://codeberg.org/NLnetLabs/roto/pulls/358
I could, for example, imagine using roto in some of my current work on svg and visuals generation. In which case I'd be greatly helped with literals like "colors", "vec2", "angle" etc. I'd imagine that as long as other literals which I don't need, like an IP address, aren't in the way, it's still greatly beneficial to have a large lib to pick and choose from, around.
fn contains(range: &AddrRange, addr: &IpAddr) -> bool { range.min Looks ugly as fudge. Syntax is not everything, but it also shows that people too easily think they are great at language design when they really aren't. It's fascinating to watch how people continue with such an approach. How many people are going to use that over, say, python?
def contains(range_: AddrRange, addr: IpAddr) -> bool:
return range_.min fn contains(range: &AddrRange, addr: &IpAddr) -> bool { range.min Looks ugly as fudge. Syntax is not everything, but it also shows that people too easily think they are great at language design when they really aren't. It's fascinating to watch how people continue with such an approach. How many people are going to use that over, say, python?
glad you like python, but a good reason to use this is setup being easier, also for people using rust, chances are the syntax is better compared to python. (also for what its worth, i picked up rust MUCH faster than i ever did with python)
the main reason i like rust is its explicitness in typing along with its syntax choices. memory safety means little imo, outside of being difficult to do strange stuff (which could be good or bad depending on your approach)
cargo add roto
code main.rs
-FILE- main.rs use roto::*;
fn main(){ roto::init_runtime() roto::load_script("hello.roto") }
-FILE-END-
code hello.roto
-FILE- hello.roto fn main() { print("Hello, world!"); } -FILE-END-
cargo run
Are there any comparisons to other Rust scripting languages like Rhai and Rune?
fn contains(range: &AddrRange, addr: &IpAddr) -> bool { range.min Looks ugly as fudge. Syntax is not everything, but it also shows that people too easily think they are great at language design when they really aren't. It's fascinating to watch how people continue with such an approach. How many people are going to use that over, say, python?