Re: The Lua FAQ ...

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

LHF writes:
>> Since Lua is promoted as a embeddable language and is so
>meticulously
>> optimised for easy embedding, it seems a shame that these features
>are not
>> more "in your face" on the main site.
>
>Aren't these features covered in the "about" page?

Well, the "about" page says that Lua is robust, fast,
portable, embeddable, simple, powerful and free. The equivalent page on
python.org (http://www.python.org/about/) looks almost the same. Most
language websites surely make the same claims here. Anyone looking at the
options for a language to embed in their project probably wouldn't see why
Lua was any easier to embed than JavaScript or Python just by looking at
the
"about" page. They might choose one of the other languages over Lua
purely on the basis of popularity.

I first found Lua (via a mention in DDJ) after having tried to embed
Python, JS and Tcl. I eventually managed to get all of these interpreters
working but I found they had more or less the same issues:- sparse or
longwinded API documentation; API that forces you to use interpreter's data
structures (which are poorly documented, remember); long setup/compilation
time; interpreter code generates warnings that I must eliminate from my own
code (hundreds of warnings); MacOS port only works with CodeWarrior and it
doesn't yet, and may never have, all features of the Windows port... and so
on. When I tried Lua, I was very impressed that it suffered from none of
these problems - it was obvious the Lua team *really* understood embedding
issues deeply. The other languages weren't so much embedder-friendly as
embedder-tolerant (ie, try and embed it - we won't stop you!) Over time
I've discovered that Lua has even more embeddability features than I
originally realised and as Lua has developed, it has just kept getting
better in this respect (replaceable numerics, incremental GC, PIL, .....)

All I am saying is that the issues involved with embedding an interpreter
are subtle and not at all obvious - certainly not obvious to the designers
of all the other scripting languages. I'm not *complaining* about the Lua
website but it seems to promote Lua as an embeddable language without
explaining why it's not like the other "embeddable" languages
which aren't really very easy to embed at all. It just seems a shame for
the Lua team to go to such trouble to understand and implement
embeddability only to be very "modest" about it on your website.

&.




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