[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua Foundation?
- From: Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@...>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 07:24:30 +0200
2017-04-20 21:21 GMT+02:00 Marc Balmer <email@example.com>:
> Am 20.04.17 um 21:01 schrieb Dirk Laurie:
>> 2017-04-20 20:35 GMT+02:00 Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
>>> My personal experiment of providing a precompiled Lua application for
>>> Mac OS X containing most of my modules received no feedback.
>> Maybe if you provided it for Linux, there would have been at least
>> one response :-)
>> My personal opinion is that your complex and mathx, and Roberto's
>> lpeg, should be distributed with Lua. Not built-in, just documented to
>> the standard of the Lua manual, built by the Makefile and installed
>> to a directory in the default package.path and package.cpath. That
>> would set the standard whereby other modules are to be measured.
> No. It should not. Not everyone needs it.
The point is not whether people need it (though these modules are nice
to have around), but to serve as a model for the community.
> Lua's biggest asset is that it comes with almost no assets.
That is a fundamentalist point of view. Such views cannot be argued
with. They are obviously correct. Basta.
Here is another equally fundamentalist view. "Lua's biggest drawback
is that it comes with almost no assets."