Haxe vs Lua

Haxe allows you to develop for Web, iOS, Android, Blackberry, Windows, OSX, Linux and others, all at once, without the need to switch languages and maintain separate code bases.

This is possible because Haxe can compile to JavaScript, ActionScript, Flash AVM bytecode, C++, Neko, PHP, C# (.NET) and Java.

Support for even more platforms and languages is under development.

The language was designed to be very expressive with the smallest possible amount of syntactic sugar. There are actually fewer keywords than other languages with similar power.

Haxe can easily compile over 100,000 lines of code to JS in seconds on a mid-spec computer.

The language is very easy to learn for those with background in JavaScript or ActionScript 3.

Haxelib (common library repo) and other sources contain large codebases for anything from cryptography to communications. A lot of these are fully cross platform and work with the JavaScript target.

The JavaScript target can be used for everything from node.js server applications (with code completion) to games using either the Flash-like OpenFL library or direct canvas or WebGL programming.

Haxe has been around for more than 10 years (since 2005) and whilst not the most popular project, has had continuous growth.

Highly unlikely to disappear or for support to stop.

Friendly community

One big advantage over pure javascript, (or some other languages listed here) is that Haxe will pick up a whole range of errors when you compile, saving you the pain of having to try and debug them later. This includes everything from syntax errors ("Unexpected ;") to type errors ("Class user has no field username. Suggestion: username").

Code completion is built into the compiler and available to the IDE allowing for much smarter code completion that can actually parse and understand the syntax tree.

The output that is generated can be trimmed using "dead code elimination" to only include those functions and libraries that are strictly necessary. All code is very readable with only minimal extras for specific functionality.

Small output is good for frontend development as file size is a major concern.

After a type is inferred from its context, it cannot be changed to a new type, and type safety is done at compile time so it stays safe without the extra maintenance required for static typing.

Syntactic macros allow you to extend compiler features at the syntax tree step. Macros come into play after code is parsed into the abstract syntax tree, and macros allow you to transform it before the rest of the compilation completes.

This provides for immense power, while at the same time scoping the extensibility at a level that is powerful, but well constrained.

You can use the same classes on the server as you do on the client where applicable. This saves a lot of time.

Haxe has the ability to use "externs". These are haxe files which describe the usage of existing JS libraries. Get code completion and compile-time-checking for everything from jQuery to Node.js.

Even without externs, native JS code can still be used through untyped code.

Haxe has the power and expression to not need the npm dependancy hell that is common in js and typescript, bit it's still simple.

Using a remoting proxy you can get type safe server to client communications, allowing for remote method execution on the server as if they were part of the client side code.

Package tree is just directory tree, it's wonderful!

Haxe supports conditional compilation, so depending on compiler flags Haxe will include or exlcude sections of your code. Making it easy to have debug and release builds.

You can define constants in an abstract enum and when used in a switch/case statement Haxe checks for exhaustiveness, making sure every constant is covered - with no runtime implication.

Haxe compiler will check types when using externs for existing libraries.

You should use externs when calling non Haxe code, but if you just need to call one or two external JS functions, you can skip type checking by calling untyped code.

One of the best features of Lua is its very well designed C API. This is very useful if you have an existing C library you need to integrate with Lua or quickly get a Lua script running on the C side of the game.

Finally Lua plays so nice with C that if you need to optimise for speed you can re-write it in C a lot easier than other languages.

The official Lua documentation is very helpful and thorough. There are also a large number of online resources or books with lots of helpful information for beginners and advanced users alike.

Lua can be built on any platform with a ANSI C compiler.

Other than that, Lua is extremely small. For example, the tarball for Lua 5.2.1 is only 245K compressed and 960K uncompressed (including documentation).

When built on Linux, the Lua interpreter built with the standard libraries takes 182K and the Lua library takes 243K.

The small size and the ability to build with a C compiler make Lua an extremely portable language that can run on a lot of different systems and computers.

Easy to learn.

Lua's performance compares very well to other languages, If performance needs to be further improved you can:

1. Implement critical parts in C
2. Use the LuaJIT compiler. The LuaJIT compiler is a drop in replacement for the stock compiler and provides significant performance improvements. From the overview page:

LuaJIT speeds can rival code written in C.

Many different game engines (e.g. Elder Scrolls series, ToME) use Lua for scripting, and it's runtime is designed for embedded use.

The Lua syntax is modeled from Modula, a language known for being a fantastic introduction to programming.

The Lua syntax also has the following key characteristics:

• Semicolon as a statement separator is optional (mostly used to resolve ambiguous cases as in a = f; (g).x(a)).
• Syntactic sugar for function calls (f'string', f"string", f[[string]], and f{table}) and method calls (obj:m()).

Due to the growing popularity, Lua has a rather large and helpful community surrounding it.