[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua on cell phones
- From: Matt Campbell <mattcampbell@...>
- Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 18:10:01 -0600
Mike Pall wrote:
Binding to C libraries is the forte of Lua.
Agreed. WIthin a few days of first learning Lua in late 2004, I was
writing bindings for Win32 API functions and COM interfaces
(specifically, interfaces that didn't derive from IDispatch and thus
couldn't be used via LuaCOM). This collection of bindings, which I call
LuaWin, has grown quite large; I may someday release it as open source
(with my employer's permission). I think much of it would be portable
to Windows Mobile.
The flipside is that since there are relatively few bindings available
for Lua, you may be writing a lot of them yourself. That has certainly
been the case in my use of Lua.
(how many refcounting bugs do your Python bindings have?).
That's why I've mostly used Pyrex for my Python bindings, even though
Pyrex is quite clumsy for some tasks.
has one obviously specific advantage: many more programmers already
know it. So how do various JS implementations stack up on the points
you've discussed? The three I'm most interested in are Apple's
Microsoft JScript (whatever version Windows Mobile is using e.g. in IE),
and Tamarin (the new one based on Adobe's current ActionScript VM).
P.S. That list looks exhaustive to me.