[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Standard libraries (was Re: Virgin tables)
- From: Chris Babcock <cbabcock@...>
- Date: Sat, 1 Jan 2011 14:56:12 -0700
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 11:03 AM, kevin beckford <email@example.com> wrote:
> You do not need standard libraries like Python, you need a "Lua
> Cookbook" like Perl's "Perl Cookbook", and even then "Programming in
> Lua" is quite helpful with that sort of thing.
> "Do-it-yourself": Good for learning, but automation and abstraction
> are always welcome.
I've scripted an SMTP dialog before... There are some things you do
not want to learn. :)
Something like a standard library is necessary for a cookbook. You
can't create a recipe for "How-to use Lua with Protocol X" without
either a recognized abstraction layer for Protocol X or so much domain
specific knowledge that the cookbook becomes a ten volume set.
I honestly don't understand the resistance to a standard library. This
is a requirement for Lua to be competitive as a mainstream language,
but the people who would use this facility understand that Lua is a
scripting language and an embedding language first. The qualities that
make Lua appropriate for those applications also make it a desirable
language for the applications that require this kind of abstraction
layer. Those who want a standard library are generally talking about
comparatively high level code that isn't going to have much impact on
those applications or even compete much with them for developer time.
I think the problem is that the Lua maintainers are too successful at
maintaining the illusion that the feature set of Lua is responsive to
democratic process. There's an irrational fear that the 'ballot box'
will be stuffed with feature requests from former Pythonistas who,
like a plague of Calfornians, bring with them the causes of the taxes
they are fleeing. We need to get past that somehow.
My friend Henning quoting me in his appeal for a core change was
singularly unhelpful. Thanks, dude - not. :)
51st century guy