lua-users home
lua-l archive

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

"Vijay Aswadhati" <> wrote:
> Someday I may regret this but from all the responses I have seen
> from the creator of Idle, my subtext parsing engine is telling me
> that 'Idle' wants to be a fork!
> And that is Ok by me (not that Idle needs my approval):
> - as long as we call a spade a spade
> - Idle is compliant with the license of Lua

In the spirit of calling a spade a spade, I translate the above as "the
creator of Idle (that's me) wants Idle to be a fork."

I beg to differ. In the spirit of calling a spade a spade, I'd even say
this is a load of rubbish. Your subtext parsing engine is reading things
into my responses which are not there.

I've already stated CLEARLY here and on the website why I did this. If I
may repeat myself, this is from an earlier post:
> It is there to solve one specific -- I might even say narrow -- problem
> I was having. And it does that (more or less, currently). It may help
> other people with similar requirements. Simple as that.

>From my website:
> So here's what I want: I want a simple, but powerful scripting language
> that can be installed by copying a couple files between machines and
> then be done with. I want a language that can build executables in the
> 20 to 50 kb range, not the megabyte monsters py2exe throws at me. And
> I want a fast, efficient, extensible language. (And if script code I've
> written ages ago remains readable and understandable even a decade
> later, I won't complain either.)

The fact is I'd prefer people on the list stick with Lua as it is rather
than switch to Idle for good. The one exception are guys who want to
write utility scripts and have them run on other machines without having
to install a plethora of software.

Because that is -- believe it or not -- the main raison d'être for Idle.

I will refrain from commenting further such or similar posts. In fact, I
will only answer technical matters. Over and out.

cheers  thomasl

web :