Re: Portable binary distribution of Lua 5.3.3 (32bit on Windows 10) with some batteries

[Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@...>]

2016-07-26 10:48 GMT+02:00 steve donovan <steve.j.donovan@gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 10:11 AM, Pavel Drotar <gmc1@azet.sk> wrote:
>> People in this mailing list are able to talk whole days about missing "continue" command or stupid holes in tables?
>
> Man, it bothers me too. It isn't representative of most happy users of
> the language, but the question is, how do people get over the
> difficulties to become happy users?

As a non-Windows user, I am happy that the OP has hijacked his own
thread with the remark you quote (my take on it is that those discussions
are a form of "creative procrastination" — google it) but as someone
who feels that a major strength of Lua is its near platform-independence.

There is a website of Lua modules with a less pemissive attitude than
"the more the merrier". Someone who likes the module (need not be the
author) nominates it, and the site keeps track of how many people
endorse it. That site (I have no issue with it, it is a step in the right
direction, so I'm not naming-and-flaming) just does not go far enough.
The information "This module has been reported to/not to work with
Lua x.y on system z" should be available, preferably as a colour-coded
table. Nothing less than operability across Windows.Mac/Linux/Android
should be acceptable for all-green.