Re: Working around minimalistic lua ...

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great Italo Maia once stated:
> Well, it seems Lua has a strong commitment with keeping its API simple,
> which is not a bad thing, of course. Languages like python, have a strong
> sales point with its "batteries included" policy, where most commonly used
> libraries are packed together with the interpreter.
> 
> Maybe Lua could sap some of "batteries included" marketing power by
> endorsing rocks or libraries (or defining interfaces) as standard
> implementations of certain functionalities. Lua does not have native
> support for classes, per example, but it has *many libraries* which allows
> you to work with classes quite easely. The problem is that they are not
> always compatible with one each other.
> 
> This particular (and common) problem could be solved with a advise in the
> lua page. Something like: "if you need classes, use this library" or "if
> you're building a classes library, make sure it is compatible with this
> pattern/interface".
> 
> Opinions?

  This has come up before:

http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2017-03/msg00371.html
http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2017-03/msg00391.html
http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2017-04/msg00063.html
http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2017-04/msg00133.html

and that's just *this* year.  If you are trying to reach consensus, it'll
take a long time and you might not even reach a consensus (for instance---I
have no desire for Lua to become even more object oriented).

  There is a Lua Wiki:

	http://lua-users.org/wiki/

and anyone can edit the pages ... 

  -spc (