Comment by 90s_dev

People who become proficient in Rust generally enjoy the syntax, so they want to carry it across. (As someone proficient in Rust who has pondered their ideal scripting language, I would have done the same.)

To your more general question: it depends. AngelScript [0] looks very much like C++, while others, like Lua, don't. It's really up to the designer's discretion.

[0]: https://www.angelcode.com/angelscript/, but https://angelscript.hazelight.se/ has better examples of what it actually looks like in use

> It looks like Rust. All Rust scripting languages do.

Not koto (https://koto.dev/) which is one of the reasons I appreciate it. I want an embeddable language targeted at my users, rather than myself which I feel Rust-like ones do. I also want an embeddable language not tied to my implementation language so if I change one, I don't have to change both. Koto only supports Rust atm but I don't see why it couldn't be supported elsewhere.

I think it's just that a lot of people like Rust syntax, and there is a lot of demand for a Rust-like scripting language (Rust syntax is also very close to JavaScript/TypeScript syntax which many, many people are familiar with)

> Is this just a property of embeddable scripting languages, they will always resemble the language they're implemented in and meant to be embedded in?

No. Think about Lua or Tcl (both implemented in C) or others like Embeddable Common Lisp.

IIRC Lua deliberately doesn’t resemble C - so if you’re going back-and-forth, editing both the host application code and a script, you can immediately tell which one you’re looking at.

Makes sense to me - which means scripting languages for curly-brace languages should probably use either Lua-style begin-end or Python-style significant indentation.