[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Why Lua is not more popular
- From: steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@...>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:13:05 +0200
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Jayanth Acharya <email@example.com> wrote:
> library wanes since they often have little feedback. For that matter the
> rails snippet link looked quite good too.
You mean the Lua Snippets? That's fully Lua I'm pleased to say. We
felt it was important to eat our own dogfood, but alas we could not
agree on which brand of dog food to eat. This situation should be
familiar to anyone looking for Lua libraries to use ;)
> BTW one though on Luarocks, and I am certain it has been discussed before...
> is it too difficult to make all rocks that use native code ('C/C++') to be
> prebuilt, with the option of source-code being available ?
Oh yes, it's a big irritation. The trouble is that the few binary
rocks available for LR were for Lua for Windows, which used an ancient
Microsoft runtime (2005). Now the idea is move away from that nonsense
and go with mingw, so it should be fine for some eager beavers to
compile and package as binary rocks as many LR packages as possible,
at least for 32-bit.
Do have a look on luadist.org for the 'batteries' download - that's
basically most of the old Lua for Windows repackaged conveniently. The
luadist command can be used to grab further binary packages, but it
lacks an easily usable index at the moment - this is all Peter Drahos'
baby and he can answer any questions about LD.