From a performance standpoint, it is very difficult to beat kestrel now. If you don't want all the fancy Microsoft bullshit (I certainly don't), use the minimal APIs and map out routes to lightweight HttpContext handlers.
I'm not sure what actually triggers the confusion about this, but it is Ada, not ADA. It's not an acronym, I'm curious about the origin of the incorrect all caps version, but it seems like there's a forgotten historical reason for this.
> Luau’s type system is structural by default
I think that makes it the second (production-ready) language to have a primarily-structural type system, after TypeScript/Flow(/and Closure to some extent) for JS. I wonder if it will follow in their impressive footsteps or if it will tread new territory.
One of the things that Flow gets right that TypeScript doesn't yet support is switching to nominal type-checking between class instances. In TypeScript you can assign an instance of one class to an instance of another as long as they have compatible fields. Compare:
Flow: https://bit.ly/3jZx4rB
TypeScript doesn't have any understanding of prototypes or prototypal inheritance, which is a big gap considering that it's a fundamental aspect of JS.
I'm really hoping Luau will come to do the right thing with tables and prototypes. Perhaps it already does, but unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a Luau playground to try in the browser.
I assume we are talking about a static type system here? Many common "scripting" languages are structurally typed - what Python calls duck typing.
The only thing holdong sml back in my eyes is somewhat clunky syntax and the module system—which is great at first but quickly becomes tricky once you start having to use functors.
A modern, reimagined sml that keeps its core while adopting some of the nicer syntactic improvements from other langs in the family and improving the module system would be a god send
He is one of the main participants in the ECMAScript committee.
If you disagree with his arguments, please explain why. But you don't seem to have heard of them in the first place, simply assuming that the reason JS isn't designed the way you would have designed it is because the designers weren’t as smart as you are, explaining their choice as “someone finds it tedious to split their 300 C calls to few continuation callbacks.” Sometimes people will disagree with you for reasons other than being stupid or lazy.
It never bothered me in Caml Light, let alone when Objective Caml was introduced.