 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
Rodrigo Azevedo <rodrigoams@gmail.com> 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?
P
--
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