Re: The Lua FAQ ...

["Andy Stark" <AStark@...>]

Lua list <lua@bazar2.conectiva.com.br> writes:
>i want to read what the list members have
>to say about writing a "real" (ly good) Lua FAQ? What should be
>covered
>and what not (consider Lua Gems)?

I've always thought the FAQ should have a question along the lines of "You
say Lua is embeddable, but what makes it any more suitable for embedding
than Python, etc?" The answer should then explain about the use of "clean"
C, compiling without errors, incremental GC, etc. This question should be
followed up by "Does Lua sacrifice common language features to keep its
weight down?", and the answer makes the case for Lua's being a highly
advanced language in its own right, not just a cut-down version of a
normal system.

I also think the question "Is Lua in the public domain?" should be
replaced by "Is Lua open source?" and the answer should explain the
licencing. It looks a bit old-fashioned nowadays when a document explains
to people "it's not public domain but they are still free to use it." (The
Rexx language suffers from this kind of thing - at least one writer says
things like "Rexx isn't like the languages you are used to: there's no
compilation phase. This is because it is an *interpreted* language..." as
if scripting was a new phenomenon that the reader might not have heard
about yet.)

The FAQ could use a little expansion but it should always stick to the
best traditions of Lua documentation: simple yet precise and brief yet
complete. This is where Lua really beats other languages.

&.


#####################################################################################
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared 
by MailMarshal.
The Blackpool Sixth Form College.
#####################################################################################