[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Is a Lua system easily embeddable? (was Wishlists and Modules (was [ANN] libmc))
- From: KHMan <keinhong@...>
- Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 03:19:13 +0800
Andre de Leiradella wrote:
After reading all the discussion about how to statically compile Lua
modules into an executable, I can only think that the amount of work
required to build a Lua system (an application with Lua VM and a set of
embedded libraries) is becoming too great.
Lua has always been simple and easily embeddable. It still is. But its
libraries aren't anymore.
What! We're starting over again? This is a lot of pointless
I don't see what the problem is. Different users have different
needs. Why don't you write your own set of libraries just the way
you want it? Settles everything once and for all. If you are so
particular about your specific linking needs, why do you keep
depending on other peoples' libraries?
Besides, people often write libraries for their own needs first,
then share it with the rest of the world. You didn't pay for them,
so don't use them if you don't like them. If you want libraries to
offer multiple linking options, why don't you contribute patches?
Reasonable solutions were offered. To say something like "Why have
a module system only to have to hack it to make it behave as if it
wasn't there?" is just pointless whingening.
What do you mean by "count bytes"? Which console, what specific
constraints? What kind of application? Executable file size?
Memory usage? Expanded file size? Seriously, how much space is
Lua+libraries going to take? Specifics or examples, please.
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia