Re: risks of lua fork?

[Thomas Lauer <thomas.lauer@...>]

Enrico Tassi <gareuselesinge@libero.it> wrote:
> The only thing I'd like to see is some sort of cooperation in the
> production of libraries. AFAIK there are multiple implementation of the
> same libraries (we have 3 different curl bindings for example) and 
> some really important libraries (like posix) seem not to be well
> maintained. This coordination effort has to be made by the community, if
> we failed so far it not a lua fault.

Couldn't agree more. Lua as a language, apart from some minor quibbles I
still have, is as good as it gets[tm].

For me one of the two sticking points, from the start, was indeed the
library issue. (The other was the inability to produce small standalone
executables, which in this context is irrelevant.)

However, once again, it's not that easy. Different projects have
completely different requirements and it just doesn't make sense to
burden the core with all sorts of nice-to-have extensions.

That's exactly where the 5.1 module system comes in. Or rather, where it
*should* come in: for a whole host of reasons, some of them mundane,
some pretty complex, require()/module() is less powerful than it could
and should be.

Then again, there's always hope... in the form of the next big
release:-)

-- 
cheers  thomasl

web : http://thomaslauer.com/start