Re: Lua for Windows needs help

[steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>]

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Antonio Scuri <scuri@tecgraf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
>   Recently I used the Ubuntu and Fedora GUI based package installation
> systems. Both already have Lua and several modules available. I think that
> those sources will be preferred by users in a long term. Just a thought.

This is very true, but despite the best efforts of Enrico Tassi, there
are limits to what Lua modules can be pushed up to the Debian/Ubuntu
repositories.  More obscure stuff, rapidly changing stuff, that's what
LuaRocks was invented for.

Cross-platform always comes with specific headaches. SciTE works
nicely on Windows and GTK platforms, but not OS X. And so on.

>   Ryan, I don't get the need for another Holy Grail. You already have a Holy
> Grail... Despite the Run Time Library endless discussion, what are your real
> needs? For the end user, what will be the benefits from those changes?

Well I don't think we are knights pursuing some vision of purity ;)...
if the thing builds cleanly, it becomes easier to manage and maintain.
It's then possible to keep a 32-bit build and a 64-bit build, and when
Windows works on ARM, we can build for that.

That is a good question - my answer would be to deliver something
sold, polished and well-documented. Maybe add some more multimedia
stuff (the project formerly known as Rubyk is very intriguing).  Give
people a smaller run-time core so they can distribute their programs
easier.

steve d.