The bracketed syntax is an okay idea especially for <close>, adding close as a keyword would be a disaster given how common the word is. If anything, local should have been tossed away as a keyword and the bracketed syntax adopted completely

    v <local const close>, v2 = io.open'file', false
    g <global const> = 5

> string interpolation

Hisham already made this nice module https://github.com/hishamhm/f-strings Which I don't dare use, even if you don't have string interpolation. Of course, I don't care because I just have a table.format(tbl, "tbl.key is %{key}"), is it a little tedious? sure, but its just a gsub call.

> short form function syntax

I disagree with this, I've always wanted it and roll my eyes as I write/create a function, especially when you like to use lots of them like

    str:gsub('%d+', (s){ tonumber(s)+1 })

You've made a mistake there

    local name = ...

    local name = ({...})[1]

   local name = table.pack(...)

Quite frankly I would like the capability of treating ... as just an array like ...[1] but I haven't looked at the parser to see if its feasible or not.

> Switch/Match/Select Statements: An optimized if/else block works just as well and another expansion of a small language.

I don't disagree, but big table of functions is so ugly, switch statements would be nice

Thanks for the comment! It’s helpful.

Lua could have ?. ?[ ?" ?{ and ?(

  for long,list,of,variables,here
  in ageneratorhere(bigparameterhere)
  do
  end

  local x do
    -- everything after is just here to define x
  end

   x = a ? b : c # x is b, same as you would if a {x=b} else {x=c}

    a,b,c = true, 1, 2
    x = a and b or c -- x is b


    a,b,c = true, false, 2
    x = a and b or c -- x is c

select (select is a native C function, this is faster than the table creation below)

    x = select(a and 1 or 2, b, c)

    x = ({false,2})[a and 1 or 2]

   local x; if a then x=b else x=c end

If you can stand Lex Friedman for a bit, the VLC authors talk about why you use ASM for a video decoder instead of pure C or rust.

I can have a computer on an endless loop without any idling, consuming as much CPU time as it can, I do not know any other classification of this action than wastefulness. crypto mining is useful of course, the end goal of mining is to get crypto, of course, there is no further goal beyond that.

Objectively, Minecraft is a game, an objective of many games is to waste time, therefore this cannot be used as a measurement, but enjoyment is. as a game it fulfills its role. wastefulness could be classified in comparison to other solutions/clones, like minetest. If minetest fulfills exactly the same goals with less action as minecraft, then minecraft is in comparison wasteful.

Another measurement is mining solutions can we achieve the action of mining with less compute? can we not mine at all? does not mining achieve the same goal? if it does, then mining is objectively wasteful.

The objective of crypto is replacing fiat currency, it does not do this, therefore it is wasteful. Of course, this is only true until it does replace it, which is why we must compare, would this cryptocoin scale to the entire world? does it require more work for it to do so? if so then it is wasteful.

And who's gonna admit that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme when all of their savings are in it? you can't, it would devalue your own money, so you're trapped, you can only further invest in it.

It is hilarious.