lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: []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?
> Theories:
> * 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.
> * 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.
> Thoughts?

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