[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Two types of Lua programmer, or two types of Lua code?
- From: Coda Highland <chighland@...>
- Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 08:09:42 -0800
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 7:54 AM, Stefano <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 25 Feb 2016 11:15, "Viacheslav Usov" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 9:18 AM, Dirk Laurie <email@example.com>
>> > I have the perception that >90% of the rocks available on the primary
>> > repository provide modules and <10% provide applications, and the suspicion
>> > that 10% is a very generous estimate.
>> Given that Lua is officially an "extension language", the scarcity of
>> all-Lua applications should hardly be surprising.
>>  "Lua is an extension programming language [...], Lua has no notion of
>> a "main" program: it only works embedded in a host client, called the
>> embedding program or simply the host." -
> Some think differently: "Lua is a powerful, dynamic and light-weight
> programming language. It may be embedded or used as a general-purpose,
> stand-alone language."
> Having personally used it with success in the latter scenario I find it
> unhelpful that no effort is spent in pursuing further that direction.
> Probably most people interested in that have already moved on.
It should be noted that its use as a standalone language is
near-exclusively the domain of Linux, where people don't have a
problem installing dependencies. At least on Windows, you're either
going to have to bundle Lua (at which point a rock doesn't make sense)
or write a wrapper app that embeds Lua (at which point a rock doesn't
make sense). Standalone apps distributed as Lua code aren't going to
see traction on Windows, and unless Microsoft themselves starts
deploying Lua, that's not going to change.