[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Is a Lua system easily embeddable? (was Wishlists and Modules (was [ANN] libmc))
- From: Andre de Leiradella <aleirade@...>
- Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:00:03 -0300
After reading all the discussion about how to statically compile Lua
modules into an executable, I can only think that the amount of work
required to build a Lua system (an application with Lua VM and a set of
embedded libraries) is becoming too great.
In the good-old days all I had to do is read the README file of each
library to check its dependencies, statically link everything, open the
libraries in the correct order, maybe execute Lua code also embedded in
the executable and call my main Lua script. This is not a hard thing for
developers to do.
Nowadays it looks like I have to fight against the established way of
doing things. While there seem to be ways of doing the above, everything
sounds like a hack, which makes me feel very uncomfortable with the result.
Lua is simple, so its libraries should be. It's much more in line with
Lua's philosophy to have simple libraries and make a module system *if*
required than the other way around. It also saves memory. In the game
industry people count bytes. Why have a module system only to have to
hack it to make it behave as if it wasn't there?
I don't seem to remember the necessity that brought Lua modules to life.
Was it to make life easier for the language users? Who are the language
users? For me they are the ones embedding Lua inside routers, game
engines or making up great batteries-included applications meant to be
used for people not so versed in the world of C and make.
Lua has always been simple and easily embeddable. It still is. But its
libraries aren't anymore.