Re: Is there any plan to include build-in class support?

["Peter Sommerfeld" <peter@...>]

Am 12.01.2011, 18:36 Uhr, schrieb Fabien <fleutot+lua@gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 10:37 AM, Steve Litt  
> <slitt@troubleshooters.com>wrote:
>
> > I wrote the entirety of the Lua version of UMENU and the Lua EMDL to
> > UMENU converter using obj.method(args).
>
> That's another instance of the problem under the recurring "we want a
> blessed stdlib" rants: the problem isn't that you did something  
> unidiomatic in Lua, it is that you did it in good faith.You couldn't  
> identify an established normal way of doing common stuff
> in Lua.

Ther is no idiomatic way to manage objects in Lua. As it
has been said: "Lua provides the mechanisms..." True
closures came relatively late into the language so some
conventions to use the ':' has been established before.
But that is a historical fact, not a idiomatic way.

IMHO the closure approach is much better. It provides
more controll and is more easy to understand. You
have to pay a little on runtime efficency, but that is
probably most time of no relevance. But well, that is
up to you, the user...

I don't understand why people ask for standards instead
to enjoy the freedom Lua gives them. There are points to
to criticize Lua, a missing std lib or object model is
not among them. IMHO of course.

I think Lua requires a different mindseit then, for instance,
Python or languages like this. Otherwise I could use one
of them. The language which fits exactly into my mindset
has not been born yet :-)

> I haven't seen any clear response from the team about this,
> but the Linus answer ("show me the  code first", and here,
> "show me your  ability to organize and to settle
> disagreements") would seem appropriate to me.

I agree.

Peter