 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
Am 08.04.2014 09:00 schrieb steve donovan:
On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Jeremy Ong <jeremycong@gmail.com> wrote:The trouble you have to deal with (or a good thing, idk), is that because Lua is by nature an embedded language, the community itself will be fractured into many divisions...Oh yes, we're a whole bunch of different cats...
I'm glad I didn't over-rant it here.I sure do appreciate diversity. In this case I simply got the impression that there's too much of it on the cost of usablity and most of all functionality.
But the C++ binding problem is very important, because there are big C++ programs out there that could use some easy Lua love.
Indeed!I my case, I'm working on a demo here inside a very large simulation/visualization based ecosystem. And I'm trying to sell the idea of placing Lua as an optional alternative to my own DSEL. Having more or less direct or easily maintainable C++ binding representation was a major point as the entire application is. As many are in this sector. So I feel C++ bindings are a very essential thing to have.
So yes, some kind of coordination is needed. I'm surprised that LuaBridge did not do the obvious thing here; did you try to contact the original author?
No, I did not. I did contact the author of LuaWrapper though. With this I had a similar problem. Passing the living objects into the context actually caused a segfault rather than just misbehavior. So I thought it might be of interest to him. So far I did not receive any response.
In any case, thanks for giving this some thought. Discussion might be a good thing.
Cheers, Moose