lua-users home
lua-l archive

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

This is not an exclusion, but C libraries are harder to maintain than "Pure Lua". Then, "Pure Lua" is *better than nothing*, but C library is OK also, obviously.

2017-03-25 10:42 GMT-03:00 Peter Aronoff <>:
Rodrigo Azevedo <> wrote:
> 1) an expanded basic library (some batteries), well organized, maintained
>    and documented. "Pure Lua" libraries at least.

Just curious: why must (or should) they be “pure Lua”? Don’t many
mainstream programming languages (e.g. Perl, Python, Ruby) write at least
some of their batteries (i.e., built-in stdlib components) in the language
of the language interpreter itself (i.e., usually C)? Why does it matter to
the scripter whether, say, a map function is written in Lua or C?

We have not been faced with the need to satisfy someone else's
requirements, and for this freedom we are grateful.
    Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, The UNIX Time-Sharing System

Rodrigo Azevedo Moreira da Silva