Re: Lua 5.2 Wish list item: stable API between versions

[askok@...]

Well, it seems you are referring to the language syntax, 
whereas I was talking about the Lua/C API.

Which one do you think the original poster was referring 
to:

> > > > My wish: a stable API between versions.  Every time Lua 
> > > > increments a version all the Lua DLL (and equivalent) 
> > > > users have 
> > > > a lot of back-end re-writing to do. 

My 2c:  syntax, let it change, if there's benefits. 
Consider Lua 5.2 a different language.
            Lua C/API, try to keep stable, or at least 
detectable which API version there is.

In practise, as Roberto points out in some of the 
pdfs/books, Lua 5.0 should have become a much more stable 
syntax than what Lua prior to that has been.  So, apart 
from the now compulsory "pairs()" call in table recursion, 
is there something that's really really bugging you?   Or 
just that you're afraid.   Be not. :)

-asko


On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 12:21:27 +1100
 Mike Kreuzer <mike@mikekreuzer.com> wrote:
> Sure, there are bindings & wrappers, but so far the ones 
> I've looked at
> (& I haven't investigated yours) either act with the 
> same carte blanche
> with regard to changing their APIs, or they don't update 
> at all.
>
> Not updating seems to be a popular choice, but what 
> possible goal
> could be achieved by fragmenting the user base between 
> different
> versions of the language?
>
> OK, I'll up the ante with Santa.  Now I'd now like 
> backwards
> compatibility for Christmas as well.  From version 5.1, 
> any 5.1 script
> should run in any future version of Lua.  If the 
> language is mature, and
> I think it is, then it's time to say so.
>
> The Oxford English Dictionary has a very simple rule for 
> deleting a word
> once it's in the dictionary:  They don't.  I think we 
> should adopt the
> same approach with language features.  It might 
> concentrate minds a bit
> when new features are being considered.
>
> Regards,
> Mike Kreuzer
> www.mikekreuzer.com
>
> askok@dnainternet.net wrote:
> > Without taking stand as to the API question itself, the 
> > gluax module 
> > interfacing allows modules to be immune to this change. 
> > The same 
> > binary can be loaded into Lua 5.0, 5.1, and any 
> > foreseeable versions.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Personally, I think binary compatibility is not so 
> > essential, though.
> >  It suffices to be able to recompile, without changes in 
> > the source. 
> > Also in this gluax does help.
> >
> > The technology was in use in LuaX, and is coming "out" 
> > in the new 
> > LuaX2 next year.  As a new thing, modules can be 
> > compiled into 
> > standard Lua n.n modules as well, which should lower the 
> > bar for most
> >  people to try it out. I'm planning to roll this out in 
> > larger scale 
> > alongside the LuaRocks initiative (note: LuaRocks is in 
> > no way gluax 
> > dependent).
> >
> > Tried to make this clear, but... it's easier to show the 
> > samples, 
> > really. :)  I will.
> >
> > Think of it as a higher level "bindings API", above the 
> > kitchen-door 
> > level Lua/C API.
> >
> > -asko
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:37:06 -0500 "Jérôme VUARAND" 
> > <jerome.vuarand@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > That's a key specificity of Lua that its API is not 
> > > stable. Lua is 
> > > an evoluting language. You just have to look at Lua 4 
> > > manual to 
> > > figure the heavy changes that have happened. Maybe you 
> > > should 
> > > consider each Lua version as a different language.
> > >
> > > This may be a source of troubles for people having a 
> > > large codebase
> > >  relying on a specific API. For long term project you 
> > > should stick 
> > > to a specific version of Lua. But according to that page 
> > > (http://www.lua.org/news.html), Lua 5.0 first alpha/beta 
> > > releases 
> > > are already 4 years old, and Lua 5.0 is still maintained 
> > > and 
> > > supported by the mailing list. I think it's quite a long 
> > > time 
> > > already.
> > >
> > > Lua 5.1 has a lot of optionnal compatibility features 
> > > that helps 
> > > make the transition smoother. And Lua releases become 
> > > more and more
> > >  distant from each other. Lua 5.2 may take several years 
> > > to come 
> > > (the graph on that page looks like a reassuring 
> > > exponential 
> > > distribution : http://www.lua.org/versions.html).
> > >
> > > My 2 (or 3) cents.
> > >
> > > 2006/11/12, Mike Kreuzer <mike@mikekreuzer.com>:
> > > > Just noticed some other 5.2 wish list items, and, well, 
> > > > Christmas
> > > >  is coming up. :-)
> > > >
> > > > My wish: a stable API between versions.  Every time Lua 
> > > > increments a version all the Lua DLL (and equivalent) 
> > > > users have 
> > > > a lot of back-end re-writing to do.  Some is sometimes 
> > > > inevitable, but less would be better.
> > > >
> > > > If a project takes several years to develop, and it's 
> > > > hoped that 
> > > > it'll be useful for several years after it's finished, 
> > > > that's two
> > > > lots of several years worth of stable API to aim for.
> > > >
> > > > Regards, Mike Kreuzer www.mikekreuzer.com