moon VS moonscript

(for context - I'm not interested in first class node support)

This seems pretty cool. I particularly like how 'gradual' it seems to be relative to things like Bazel, i.e. you can take some shell scripts and migrate things over. I did have a play and hit an initial problem around project caching I think, which I raised at [0].

One comment, from the paranoid point of view of someone who has built distributed caching build systems before is that your caching is very pessimistic! I understand why you hash outputs by default (as well as inputs), but I think that will massively reduce hit rate a lot of the time when it may not be necessary? I raised [1].

As an aside, I do wish build systems moved beyond the 'file-based' approach to inputs/outputs to something more abstract/extensible. For example, when creating docker images I'd prefer to define an extension that informs the build system of the docker image hash, rather than create marker files on disk (the same is true of initiating rebuilds on environment variable change, which I see moon has some limited support for). It just feels like language agnostic build systems saw the file-based nature of Make and said 'good enough for us' (honorable mention to Shake, which is an exception [2]).

[0] https://github.com/moonrepo/moon/issues/637

There are many tools like Lerna, Nx, Turborepo, Moon, Rush, and Bazel, to name a few. Today, we'll be using Turborepo, as it's lightweight, flexible, and easy to use.

You should give moon a try: https://moonrepo.dev/

Now I like lua, and think single pass is the way to go for interpreted, since you don't have the disadvantage of a slow compile time no matter how big your codebase gets, BUT its not great to write in. things like +=, ++, are not possible, which means the only solution is to transpile into it, which has led to some good languages like moonscript[0], teal[1] which offers static type checking, an absolute must as your codebase grows.

[0]: https://moonscript.org/

That can be very productive and clever, but be - and stay - aware that such polyglot solutions tend to be maintenance headaches in the longer run.

There is a really nice open source project out there that allows you to train your hearing and your sightreading, but it's written in the authors own language which in turn compiles to JavaScript and the headache to set up their toolchain is such that I haven't bothered fixing any of the bugs that I'm aware of (and there are plenty).

https://sightreading.training/

https://github.com/leafo/sightreading.training

It's written in a language called 'Moonscript':

https://github.com/leafo/moonscript

Which compiles to Lua. Which compiles to JS.

Madness. Nice madness, but still, it stopped me from being a contributor.

RE: the cost of switching at this point, what about languages that compile to Lua? Like https://moonscript.org/. That would let you keep the legacy code, no?

In the case of Lapis, it is actually written in Moonscript, which needs a few more things.

There's also some languages made to compile straight to Lua: - MoonScript is the most popular Lua wrapper - it's built to be more Python-like, featuring indentation-based scopes, function calls without parentheses, lambda syntax, list comprehension, and much more. - Yuescript is a modern update to MoonScript that adds more features (I haven't used it myself, so I'm not entirely sure exactly how it differs from MS). - Teal is a version of Lua that adds static typing for better code standards.

A programmer-friendly language that compiles to Lua.

This is a sample code for learning, written in Moonscript for TIC-80: