lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
Let's give Thomas a break on this... He said himself he'd only respond to technical issues now, so why bother asking anything but?
And anyways, the language border is now more fuzzy than when I did LuaX a few years back. Token filters offer ways to have microevolution within the language boundaries. Biologists have the same dilemma with species, and they define superspieces as those, which can reproduce (merge) among themselves. This is Good in nature, since it is an effective way of immense variation.
Lua authors are clear on what should _not_ be called Lua. They are not so clear on what _should_ be.
As to the current situation, I don't think it will matter. Much. My upcoming variants will hold the Lua name, I might just as well place a bid on "Lua Super" here and now. :) You'll see about it later. 

Cheers, and Love, Peace etc.
-asko



Javier Guerra Giraldez kirjoitti 15.7.2007 kello 6:18:


Thomas Lauer wrote:
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 there is no "serious" scripting language I know of that can 
do that.
As i see it, you wanted Lua; but didn't want to include all needed modules. so you did the sensible thing: embedded Lua into your executable, and statically linked your choice of modules, to make them 'standard'. 

It looks very similar to LuaX, doesn't it?
and I, like others on the list, don't think that warrants a different name.
for me the question is: did you change the language? or only the standard set of modules? 

--
Javier