People experienced enough to have multiple installs of lua, can setup
lua without the need of this type of installer. File associations make
for high accessibility from explorer. This installer isn't targeted at
experienced Lua users but people who might want to try Lua or those of
us too lazy to setup Lua on multiple machines without an automatic
install.
Exactly. Plus I feel like this is the "way" Windows expects scripting to act.
But the safety point is seems valid, double clicking should call the
Lua editor-of-choice rather than executing the script directly. That
also allows the user to see what is being executed rather than just
popping up and scrolling away. There is the -i parameter on lua.exe
but it seems nicer to see what you are doing before you run something.
I will have to say that I don't want to write some backup script and see my editor open before firing the script off. I think this is very debatable. I feel like users have the 'right-click->Edit Script', just like batch files. Are batch files too insecure? Well sure if you don't know what they are doing. The idea is not to have blind users running scripts all over the, but instead write and view scripts until they are ready to deploy them. Once in that state the file association works great.
