lua-users home
lua-l archive

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

It was thus said that the Great Enrico Colombini once stated:
> 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.

  Funny enough, I could do thing 32 years ago.

  Of course, back then I had an 8-bit computer and the language was BASIC,
but I was ready to go about as fast as I could turn the power on.  Granted,
the code I wrote would most likely NOT work on Apples, Ataris or Commodore
64s (I had the Tandy Color Computer) but aside from that, text, graphics,
disk, was all available on power up.

> 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.

  Despite computers today being *way* more powerful than the computers I
used 32 years go, somehow, the joy of programming isn't quite there ... 

  -spc (I wonder if this explains why I'm having a blast writing 6809
	assembly code as a PONARV [1])