RE: The source file culture

["John Hind" <john.hind@...>]

I think you have hit the nail on the head here.

If we want to take Lua in the direction of a general scripting language we
need a more comprehensive and standardised runtime implementation and the
module system should be part of the runtime not part of the language itself.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br [mailto:lua-
> bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br] On Behalf Of pan shizhu
> Sent: 11 September 2009 08:56
> To: Lua list
> Subject: Re: The source file culture
> 
> Lua is designed as a language to be embbeded. AFAIK it has two typical
> use:
> 
> 1. to be embbeded in a product, and the users are end-users of the
> product, i.e. non-programmers who should *not* add library to the lua
> script. I usually design programms like this: if user can write the
> lua script, I will restrict the use of "import". The libraries are
> executed in the same thread of the hosting program instead of a
> sandbox, we should not let end-users to add libraries.
> 
> 2. to be used by the programmer himself, I embbed lua into my C
> program because I use it, end-user of my program cannot see or change
> the lua scripts. In this case I compile all library and statically
> link with my program and release with my program. For this use, I
> definetly need the C source.
> 
> 
> Yes, there may be users who use lua as a general-purpose stand-alone
> scripting language, but IMHO the vast majority of lua use, is to be
> used within another product, for which, only the original programmers
> should be able to add libraries, end-user are not expected to add
> libraries.
> 
> IMO release windows-based binraries to the relatively small amount of
> users doesn't seem to help a lot.