On Jan 25, 2016 16:54, "Paul Merrell" <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Peter Aronoff <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this was specifically for me or a general reminder, but I'm
> > curious about it either way.
> More a general reminder; I saw URLs for several libraries flying by
> that weren't on the wiki page.
> > When I need a lua library, my first instinct isn't to go to that wiki at
> > all, but to go to LuaRocks. And it's suprising to me that the wiki
> > doesn't even mention LuaRocks.
> > I'm wonder if this is just a cultural split between (relatively) newer and
> > older users of Lua. I'd be curious to hear other thoughts.
> LuaRocks is great if you are building an implementation from scratch.
> But life becomes more complicated with LuaRocks if you're working with
> a program that embeds Lua 5.3. At least the last time I checked,
> Rockspecs weren't including version information for the versions of
> Lua supported
This is incorrect. LuaRocks always supported specifying Lua version in the rockspecs. And it features search filtered by Lua version for many years by now.
> and when you lack the ability to embed LuaRocks because
> you're using a program that embeds Lua developed by someone else, the
> wiki page becomes the favored starting point.
You don't need to embed LuaRocks to use it in that fashion. You can use it to fetch modules for use in other apps just fine. Torch, the machine learning toolkit, for example, happily uses LuaRocks to install their modules. The Neovim editor also uses LuaRocks.
LuaRocks installs modules according to a standard Lua module tree, and you can point it to install under any prefix directory, or simply use it to fetch modules and copy them over wherever you like!
Give LuaRocks a second try, you might be surprised! :-D