lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On Mon, Feb 18, 2002 at 08:39:26AM -0500, John D. Ramsdell wrote:
> Daniel Silverstone <> writes:
> > Lua /is/ easy to install, perhaps not for people who don't know what they're
> > doing when they install software which isn't pre-packaged, but then again,
> > is that such a bad thing?
> This is false.  Lua is not easy to install.  For autoconfig'ed
> systems, one simply types:
> $ ./configure
> $ make
> $ make install

autoconf makes things easier to install on Unix based systems only.
autoconf becomes a complete pain the *instant* you want to do anything with
an application under something that isn't supported by autoconf.  For
example, success with Windows and RISC OS is extremly limited.


> The current Lua install method requires that one edit it's makefile.
> The makefile has it's own conventions that are different from every
> other package.  It's a waste of time to ask programmers to go through
> this process.

Considering lua is written in 100% ANSI C, asking programmers to fudge
around the uglyness that autoconf involves to run it on something other than
a Unix (such as Windows, RISC OS, embedded OSes) is far more work that
tweaking a Makefile.

> Autoconf solved this problem a long time ago.  It's well tested
> software that is accepted by the community.  There is a reason so many
> people use it.

I'm yet to see any problem solved by autoconf other than making it slightly
easier for people to compile programs on a Unix or similar OS.  It doesn't
aid the majority of users in this world from compiling or installing it at
all, in fact it hinders it.  One of the reasons I fell in love with Lua so
quickly is that you don't have to faff around with autoconf.

(autoconf also has lots of small problems even working on real Unices, such
as RISC iX, for the simple reason that the OS' name has a space in it...)

Rob Kendrick -
You will hear good news from one you thought unfriendly to you.