| layout | title | subtitle |
|---|---|---|
default |
FAQ |
Freaky answers questioned. |
The interpreter runs correctly and fast enough for the common needs. It strikes a unique balance in performance and ease of use, specially when heavy interoperation with CLR code is needed.
The standard library is missing only a few debug methods, but is converging fast enough. See this pdf for more info.
A version targeting .NET 4.x portable class libraries is included in the package.
Of course not. There are many reasons for this (including bugs), but you can read more about the differences here. The differences are unlikely to hit you on daily usage, as they are all encountered in not so common scenarios.
If you find any program which runs differently on the two system and it's not cited in the differences page, please report on the forums or discord!
It's a cool language. MoonSharp flirts a lot with videogame development in Unity, and Lua has been the scripting language of choice for videogames for years. Also I thought I knew Lua a lot when I started this project, so it seemed a natural choice. The first thing I learned was that, no, I didn't know the language well enough. It's been an amazing experience.
No technology ever can be used only in one programming scenarios, though some are better fits than others.
A business application running Lua is surely more common than videogames running XSLTs or Razor, anyway.
I, for one, am using MoonSharp in business-line applications, and so can you, if you want.
Write on the forums (google group) or on github issues. Hopefully somebody - maybe me - will answer.
Sure! Just fork https://github.com/moonsharp-devs/moonsharp_org on GitHub.
It's a website built using Jekyll and GitHub Pages.
Send us a merge request after the edits have been done.
Again, sure! Just fork https://github.com/moonsharp-devs/moonsharp on GitHub.
Send us a merge request after the edits have been done.