Re: Positioning a new lua distribution

["Martin Spernau" <martin@...>]

From: "Jean-Claude Wippler" <jcw@equi4.com>
> Asko Kauppi wrote:
> > Yes, a "carry around" language is what we'd expect to gain. Meaning,
> > something that fits on a floppy ;) and doesn't need installation.
> > [...]
>
> Exists today.  Two dozen platforms.  Been there, done that.  Is called
> "tclkit".

Good point. I was playing with TclKit some time ago but dumped it because
then I didn't really want to learn the slightly dated Tcl idioms ;)

> It all sounds so "me too" ... every scripting language seems to do the
> same: "let's redo everything, but with X as basis instead of Y".  With
> all due respect: <yawn>

Excuse out youthfull enthusiasm ;) (youthfull in sense of programming
experience, not age ;) )

> If the Lua community really wants to make a difference, then IMO there
> is one big glaring hole which Lua might just fill in a phenomenally
> effective way:
>
>     A "systems-scripting" language in which a growing range of functions
>     are implemented, and which is embeddable *in* several other scripting
>     languages (as well as stand-alone in a full-Lua context, of course).

Hmmm, Lua extensions to Perl/Python etc. ...
Yes, I think I see your point.

But could you maybe elaborate why you think one mght find it usefull to
embed one scripting language into another?
Binding C-code can't be the real reason, Python bindings are rather easy
too.

Or are you thinking more along the lines of: 'Use this extension with Perl,
or use it with Python, or even Ruby if you like, w/o changing the code?'

-Martin