lua-users home
lua-l archive

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

[Apologies for not replying to this message by reply to a list email;
I had delivery turned off at the time.]

George Petsagourakis wrote:

> My comment stems from the fact that there are quite a lot of people
> who are using Windows, and really there is nothing we can do
> other than open the code with a text editor and look at it unless we
> are into C programming.

It has nothing to do with Windows, it applies to any Lua user who is
"not into C programming". Equally, the same applies to anyone perusing
a Lua script who is not into Lua programming.

> Taking this as a fact implies that in order to script Lua,

As already pointed out, this is untrue. What is true is that the
standard Lua system does not provide much in the way of libraries.
However, I often find myself installing extra libraries for Perl
programming as I do for Lua. The difference is that CPAN provides a
simple uniform system, which hides the C compilation &c. that is

> you need to be able to program in C which blows away
> all the simple to use syntax concept of Lua, that is the main selling
> point to non programmers.

Lua programming is, by definition, not for non-programmers! Lua is of
interest to non-programmers for data description, configuration, and,
potentially, as a way in to programming. Again, there are ways to make
it easier, and many distributions, like Lua for Windows, do exactly

> I do realize that Lua isn't about getting it out and that it is meant to be
> embedded in another host program but it has gotten beyond that
> scope, for quite some years now, especially since the release of
> the Kepler project.

And the Kepler project provides the solution too: luarocks (sorry, I
referred to "gems" in a previous post, which is of course the Ruby

> I feel the need to express that the community
> should be ready, for example, when the Apache includes Lua
> support with their next release.

For what is the community not "ready"?

Really, your entire argument is a mish-mash of exaggeration ("you
can't program in Lua without C"), nonsense ("you can't use Lua on
Windows if you're a non-programmer"), personal bias ("I want Windows
binaries!") and untruth ("Lua doesn't have a module system"). It's
perfectly true that Lua's distribution is not as advanced as its
competitors'. This suggests two logical courses of action for you:
decide to help, or decide to use a more mature language platform.

While I'm sure you're not a troll, this kind of lazy un-thought-out
writing is little better than trolling.

Il ne vaut pas la peine de peigner l’eau