lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 09:28:29PM -0700, Chris Babcock wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Enrico Tassi <> wrote:
> > The point of not having a meta-package depending a standard set of
> > libraries is that there is no such standard set, and this is IMO one of
> > the biggest problems of this technology (Lua I mean, not your linux
> > distribution).
> A more politic way to say this might be that Lua offers no pretensions
> to a standard toolkit because neither the language nor the community
> makes any assumption about the jobs for which you'll be using it.

Well, it depends on your definition job. I hadn't in mind "download
something from the net", I had in mind "downloading something with libcURL".
Do you think developers like to have 3 different bindings for the same
lib? The same holds for SQL DBMS interfaces. Also GTK seems to have 2,
maybe 3, different bindings. We now have 3 bit libs (with 2 APIs).

And with a set of libs, I mean a set of libs that are well tested and
that, for example, the community or the authors will keep up to date.
Not necessarily a set of librarier that must be installed by default, or
all together.

> "Batteries included" is great marketing, but it's not practical for
> two of the major use cases for Lua.

Agreed, but my perspective was a bit different as I explained.

Enrico Tassi