On 27 Feb 2016 12:13, "Enrico Colombini" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 27-Feb-16 12:04, Pierre Chapuis wrote:
>> 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  and adding a 2 lines BAT file.
>> You don't even have to compile anything.
> That's what I was doing some years ago, when there was a single universal Windows runtime (MSVCRT.DLL) and most libraries were available as precompiled DLLs.
> I may be wrong her, (not having been able to use Lua for paid work in the latest years, but getting drop-in precompiled libraries does not currently seem to be that easy.
> Besides, distributing the interpreter and the libraries together with each and every Lua program does not strike me as the best solution for all cases.
>> If you ask your Windows users to install Python, my experience is that
>> they will run away too.
> Not very reassuring :-)
> My users don't seem to be running away, though. To illustrate the point, just recently I had trouble akin to a Lua library installation with a Python library that was awkward to install on Windows (numpy). In the end, I had the user install another Python interpreter (Anaconda) that had both numpy included and a package manager to easily get the other required libraries.
> I be would very glad for a solution to the problem "to run this Lua script, you just have to...".
My work on ULua [http://ulua.io] has been motivated by similar concerns.
There is almost an 1 to 1 relationship between modules and packages, so in most case for:
you just need: