Re: The Future of Lua's C ABI Compatibility

[Flyer31 Test <flyer31@...>]

To my experience using Lua in a Windows application an also in
Microcontroller application, the concept of static binding of Lua also
is working VERY well and it is done very well from my point of view.

Maybe I am sort of "restricted Lua user" of course, as I have no
experience (but also no real interest) in using external libs.... .

On Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 12:05 PM Paul Ducklin <pducklin@outlook.com> wrote:
>
> >the embedded purpose of Lua means
> >once a codebase implements a version,
> >it's likely never going to update..
>
> If a software project isn’t going to update anything, doesn’t that neatly solve your problem of having to recompile when anything changes? No updates means no changes means no rebuilds.
>
> As for needing to recompile your project when a new version comes out so that the modules and the runtime match up…
>
> …that’s how the Linux kernel has always worked (modules must be recompiled against the headers of the current kernel, even if only the rightmost version number changes). Even if you find it annoying it doesn’t seem to have harmed the adoption of Linux against, say, the BSDs, and it is easily automated.
>
> I use Lua as a day-to-day scripting and prototyping language and my preference is static linking, so I have no choice but to recompile and rebuild my single binary every time either Lua itself, or one of my chosen Lua C extensions, or one of my pure-Lua modules, or one of the third-party libraries they need (e.g. OpenSSL, needed by LuaOSSL and LuaSec) changes.
>