Re: Two types of Lua programmer, or two types of Lua code?

["Pierre Chapuis" <catwell@...>]

> On 26-Feb-16 19:03, Phil Leblanc wrote:

> I published a couple of OS-independent open source applications written
> in Lua. The average Windows user had trouble even setting up the
> interpreter.
> That's why I don't even try using libraries and resort to languages I
> like a lot less than Lua (e.g. Python) when I have to write something
> that normal users can just *use*.
>
> Making Lua a popular choice as a generic application language would
> require a large, portable, 'official' standard library and an
> user-oriented, hassle-free package installation system (with no extra
> tools required).
> I am not sure this would be worth the cost: after all, Lua shines in the
> embedded language domain, while the "generic application language with
> tons of libraries" niche is already quite full.

Or you could just package the interpreter, the application and necessary
libraries in a way that your users can use. For Windows, it can be as
simple as bundling it with Lua Binaries [1] and adding a 2 lines BAT file.
You don't even have to compile anything.

If you ask your Windows users to install Python, my experience is that
they will run away too.

[1] http://luabinaries.sourceforge.net/

-- 
Pierre Chapuis