lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On 24-Mar-17 22:09, Sean Conner wrote:
  The consensus there seems to be:  it's missing batteries and I can't get
started with it in less than 5 seconds on Windows.

Nowadays "programming language" is as ambiguous as "operating system": for most people it does not actually mean a programming language alone, but also a development environment, a full set of libraries (possibly including GUI design end programming) all of which should be installable with a couple of clicks and no preliminary study.

> -spc (And there's some grousing about LuaRocks not being as good as it
>  could be, but there's no details about what is missing from
>  LuaRocks)

I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that LuaRocks libraries installation requires a C compiler. Not a problem on Linux (etc.) but definitely a problem on Windows. This cuts out the vast majority of learners-to-midrange programmers: after all, why use an accessible language if to use it you need a 'hard' language?

I would like to stress that this is not a criticism of Lua (which I love) or of LuaRocks (a quite worthy project), but simply a consideration about the mounting costs of supporting lazy... er, typical programmers.