[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Ruby philosophy vs Lua philosophy
- From: Steve Litt <slitt@...>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 09:53:05 -0500
On Thu, 28 Feb 2013 17:39:00 +1100
Ross Bencina <email@example.com> wrote:
> Lua's leadership are focused on the language core, and for this, I
> for one, am extremely grateful.
> In the early days of Python, Python held out great hope as an
> embeddable scripting language (it was, after all, invented as a
> better TCL). Then the "lets use it as a general language with a
> massive runtime library" folks took over and the possibility of using
> Python as a light-weight embeded language because a de-bundling
> nightmare. Thankfully Lua looks unlikely to meet the same terrible
Now I finally understand the vehemence some folks had about not
including a bunch of libraries. I forgot that each library adds junk
that might need to go in very little RAM.
So I hereby withdraw my suggestion that Lua have bundled libraries like
Python. I don't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
Python's bundled libraries and modules should remain exactly as they
Somebody recommended a feedback system for Lua modules like the
feedback systems of online retailers. That's an outstanding idea. We
also need some kind of module search facility so you can describe what
you need to do and get suggestions for modules.
For deployments of programs, we could probably use Lua scripts
that call LuaRocks to get the modules.
Of course, we still need people to write modules to be used with Lua,
but it's a positive feedback system: The easier it is to find the right
module, the more people will use Lua, and the more people will author
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance