Re: ​Dead Batteries

[Italo Maia <italo.maia@...>]

Javis: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/lua-python3.html Other benchmarks have similar results. Memory consumption might also be an issue.

Personally, the batteries are not very important if the common libraries one might need are easy to find/pick. 

Standard lua feels very niche. A lot of people feel that restriction and it hurts.

Anyhow, if looking for something with batteries included, ravi much have something for you.

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019, 05:46 Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <lhf@tecgraf.puc-rio.br> wrote:

> The progress of Lua from 5.1, 5.2 to 5.3 and soon 5.4 has created a problem -  many of the previously released pre-complied libraries have not been updated and will not run under 5.3.

I used to have different versions of my libraries [1], one for each
version of Lua. It took some work but not too much to maintain
separate versions. In July 2018 [2] I moved to a single source code
for 5.3 with an #include for compatibility across Lua versions. I
expect that updating my libraries to 54 will be a breeze with this
approach. Overall, I'm very happy with this approach, especially
because my libraries are now self-contained and include third-party
libraries when needed, and also because they build out of the box in
Linux and macOS. (Unfortunately, I never got them into LuaRocks,
probably because I misunderstood Hisham's instructions about how to
write a LuaRocks-friendly Makefile. I'd love if someone could help me
there [3].)

I've also released a binary distribution of Lua with my libraries
pre-compiled [4]. Apparently, it attracted no interest at all. Perhaps
because it was for macOS only. I expect that multi-platform binary
distributions are indeed a LOT of work.

[1] http://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/~lhf/ftp/lua/
[2] http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2018-07/msg00671.html
[3] http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2019-04/msg00119.html
[4] http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2013-07/msg00499.html