Re: Why Lua is not more popular

[Steve Litt <slitt@...>]

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 14:13:05 +0200
steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Jayanth Acharya
> <jayachar88@gmail.com> wrote:

> > 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.

I hope this new initiative will tell which rocks are pure Lua, and
which need compilation. When choosing, from my perspective, having to
compile removes four points on a ten point scale. Having to compile a
language library is just soooooo Perl, and my Perl days are over.

Disclaimer: I do mostly office automation type software, so native Lua
performance is more than sufficient, and I write a lot of free software
that others use, so deployment is a real issue for me.

Thanks,

SteveT

Steve Litt                *  http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance