Roto: A Compiled Scripting Language for Rust
blog.nlnetlabs.nl
Roto: A Compiled Scripting Language for Rust
1–10 of 116 posts
Re: Roto: A Compiled Scripting Language for Rust
#2> Finally, we want a language that is easy to pick up; it should feel like a statically typed version of scripting languages you're used to.
It looks like Rust. All Rust scripting languages do. Is this true for all other languages? Is this just a property of embeddable scripting languages, they will always resemble the language they're implemented in and meant to be embedded in?
Re: Roto: A Compiled Scripting Language for Rust
#3Roto means "broken" in Spanish.
Re: Roto: A Compiled Scripting Language for Rust
#4> Note that nothing in the script is run automatically when the script is loaded, as happens in many other scripting language. The host application decides which functions and filtermaps it extracts from the script and when to run them.
So it's closer to something like C or C++, where it just defined stuff and you can choose what to use? I guess that's fine when there's no initialization for the script to do. Maybe in your domain that's never the case. But many languages end up adding static initialization as a first-class feature eventually.
Re: Roto: A Compiled Scripting Language for Rust
#5Sidenote, but I wish it became the practice to explain abbreviations such as BGP, to make the post intelligible to people outside the field.
Re: Roto: A Compiled Scripting Language for Rust
#6> Finally, we want a language that is easy to pick up; it should feel like a statically typed version of scripting languages you're used to. It looks like Rust. All Rust scripting languages do. Is this true for all other languages? Is this just a property of embeddable scripting languages, they will always resemble the language they're implemented in and meant to be embedded in?
IIRC Lua deliberately doesn’t resemble C - so if you’re going back-and-forth, editing both the host application code and a script, you can immediately tell which one you’re looking at.
Makes sense to me - which means scripting languages for curly-brace languages should probably use either Lua-style begin-end or Python-style significant indentation.
Re: Roto: A Compiled Scripting Language for Rust
#7> Finally, we want a language that is easy to pick up; it should feel like a statically typed version of scripting languages you're used to. It looks like Rust. All Rust scripting languages do. Is this true for all other languages? Is this just a property of embeddable scripting languages, they will always resemble the language they're implemented in and meant to be embedded in?
> Is this just a property of embeddable scripting languages, they will always resemble the language they're implemented in and meant to be embedded in?
No. Think about Lua or Tcl (both implemented in C) or others like Embeddable Common Lisp.
Re: Roto: A Compiled Scripting Language for Rust
#8Sidenote, but I wish it became the practice to explain abbreviations such as BGP, to make the post intelligible to people outside the field.
Border Gateway Protocol
But I don’t even think people in networking would say that, it is canonically BGP.
This is kind of like complaining about the abbreviation HTML, sure yes it is Hypertext Markup Language but everyone knows it as HTML to the point that there are probably people that don’t know it’s an abbreviation.
Re: Roto: A Compiled Scripting Language for Rust
#9Sidenote, but I wish it became the practice to explain abbreviations such as BGP, to make the post intelligible to people outside the field.
There is a convention in academic papers where you write the explanation for the 1st occurrence of the abbreviation, then leave it out for the rest of the paper. I suggest others to follow the same, except maybe for the most obvious ones (like HTML mentioned in the other reply)
Re: Roto: A Compiled Scripting Language for Rust
#10Sidenote, but I wish it became the practice to explain abbreviations such as BGP, to make the post intelligible to people outside the field.
There is a convention in academic papers where you write the explanation for the 1st occurrence of the abbreviation, then leave it out for the rest of the paper. I suggest others to follow the same, except maybe for the most obvious ones (like HTML mentioned in the other reply)
> HTML
Did you mean Hypertext Markup Language (HTML)?
It's a trite comment to make (the original complaint). Don't know an abbreviation? Takes two seconds to look it up. Not all content on the web is written for the lowest common denominator, and thank god for that.