Re: LUA for Batch Scripting

[Gavin Wraith <gavin@...>]

On Fri 16 Nov, Brent Fulgham wrote:
> 
> I'm just looking at LUA for the first time.  It seems like a great
> tool for an embedding language for other programs.  I'm wondering if
> it's also useful as a full-blown scripting language in the vein of
> Perl or even shell scripting.
> 
> The language does not seem to include many "high level" constructs
> for dealing with directories, etc., so these are probably covered in
> additional libraries.  Are these delivered in some uniform manner, or
> do most people just create their own routines for these tasks?

One of the aspects of LUA for which I offer up prayers of thanks
is that its developers have made a real effort to make it
truly portable.

The trouble with many "high level" constructs (excuse me if
I am guessing wrongly what you mean by this phrase) is that they
depend on a particular notion of filing system. If you can abstract
the notion of filing system to the level where it embraces
all the potential users of LUA, then fine, but I think you
would find that you ended up with something unwieldy.
Embedded systems, for example, may use a notion of filing
system so crude that there are no "directories/folders"
(ditto PICK users), while others have systems where files
have attributes that do not correspond to anything in Unix,
and where an application can have its own custom filing
system. It is not just a question of syntax for directory
separators and such.

I think the best policy is to keep anything that requires a
particular kind of operating system as an "add on" library -
the present policy, I believe.

-- 
Gavin Wraith (gavin@wraith.u-net.com)
Home page: http://www.wraith.u-net.com/