Re: Lua library bank? (Was: Ruby philosophy vs Lua philosophy

[Petite Abeille <petite.abeille@...>]

On Feb 28, 2013, at 11:39 AM, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think anybody seriously means "like Python."  Python is
> way past "batteries included". It's reached the stage of "any old
> junk repackaged". 

Ah! Indeed.

Case in point… say one implements an IMAP server [sic]… nothing fancy, just the core IMAP4rev1 specification… which is about 10 year old this year… anyhow… for testing purpose,  one rounds up the usual suspects… the UW c‑client library as a baseline … and the latest in Java, Perl, Python, and Ruby… they all sport some sort of IMAP client module "out-of-the-box"... battery included and all… great… piece of cake.

But, nay, all these packages fail miserably at the most basic interoperability level… none of them implement the spec properly… none… epic fail.

Only the UW c‑client library complies to the spec with flying color… honorable mention for the Perl module as well… which was not as dysfunctional as the other assorted clowns…

In fairness, the IMAP spec is a bit of a pathological case… but still… if all those "batteries included" are radioactive junk blowing up in your face at the slightest ignition… just don't bother.