Re: Is a Lua system easily embeddable? (was Wishlists and Modules (was [ANN] libmc))

[KHMan <keinhong@...>]

Andre de Leiradella wrote:
> 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.
> [snip]
> Lua has always been simple and easily embeddable. It still is. But its 
> libraries aren't anymore.

What! We're starting over again? This is a lot of pointless 
complaining...

I don't see what the problem is. Different users have different 
needs. Why don't you write your own set of libraries just the way 
you want it? Settles everything once and for all. If you are so 
particular about your specific linking needs, why do you keep 
depending on other peoples' libraries?

Besides, people often write libraries for their own needs first, 
then share it with the rest of the world. You didn't pay for them, 
so don't use them if you don't like them. If you want libraries to 
offer multiple linking options, why don't you contribute patches?

Reasonable solutions were offered. To say something like "Why have 
a module system only to have to hack it to make it behave as if it 
wasn't there?" is just pointless whingening.

What do you mean by "count bytes"? Which console, what specific 
constraints? What kind of application? Executable file size? 
Memory usage? Expanded file size? Seriously, how much space is 
Lua+libraries going to take? Specifics or examples, please.

--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia