[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Python people strive to embrace LuaJIT
- From: "Stuart P. Bentley" <stuart@...>
- Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2010 00:48:17 -0400
For the record, I've written ten times more "real world applications"
using just the libraries that come with Lua for Windows (mostly just the
base language and IUP, with occasional use of CanvasDraw, IM, LuaGL, and
LuaSocket) than I ever would in Python, so I think the line about Lua
being permanently crippled by its refusal to bundle hundreds of megs of
batteries in its official distribution doesn't really hold water.
On Fri, 03 Sep 2010 07:11:43 -0400, steve donovan
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:47 PM, Stefan Behnel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Interesting. I think an effort to provide something like an "extended
standard library" that people just grab instead of writing their own is
good idea. Now, all that's missing is to get those batteries
You might as well ask what GUI toolkit Linus is including in Linux. ;)
Still, something like luarocks makes it easy to get batteries, and
there are 'all-in-one' distributions like Lua for Windows.
But the level of duplication is very intense. In any large-ish Lua
library/program, you will find a utility function to split a string
into a list. I mentioned this to Yuri (of Sputnik fame) and he replied
that Sputnik actually has two distinct implementations of this
pattern. There are two distinctly different XML bindings in Lua for
Windows, and so on.
Which is vaguely related to the topic at hand, since having a
'blessed' set of libraries has clearly been a bonus for Python. But
Lua is the C of dynamic languages, lean, fast - and real men write
their own libraries.