[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Python and Lua
- From: "Maciej Maczynski" <macmac@...>
- Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2000 14:05:30 -0000
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]On
> > Behalf Of Nick Trout
> > Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2000 3:40 AM
> > You have more choice with Lua, that is its strength.
> > Python's is that the
> > functionality is there and users concentrate on modules and
> > extension libraries
> > hence further increasing its "usefulness".
> I admit this is an area where I'm jealous of Python! It has a very nice
> collection of libraries for image manipulation, ftp, www, tkinter, etc. I
> think many people decide to use Python because of the libraries.
> So, why do those libraries exist for Python but not for Lua?
> * Python supports "import" semantics, thus encouraging libraries.
> * From its early history, libraries were published for Python. The early
> contributions encouraged later contributions.
> * Marketing... Lua is marketed mainly as an extension language, Python
> mainly as a standalone scripting language, so Python naturally attracts
> extension libraries.
> * User base. Python has more users ( I think ), therefore it has more
> * Libraries are platform dependent, thus harder to propogate. This
> why Lua _doesn't_ have more librares, but Python has this problem too.
> come Python overcame it but Lua didn't?
> It would be nice to overcome this obstacle to broader acceptance of Lua.
I think this is the destiny of embedded language - I've choosen Lua because
it HAS NOT tons of libraries I don't need.
Looking for embedded language you mind its size and extension capabilities.
If it also has nice, clean Pascal-like syntax, as Lua does - that's all I