[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Standard libraries (was Re: Virgin tables)
- From: Alexander Gladysh <agladysh@...>
- Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 16:03:25 +0300
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 13:39, Dirk Laurie <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2011 at 01:09:29AM +0200, Axel Kittenberger wrote:
>> Personally I wonder if this strong focus to Python-like is a good
>> idea, but this is just a far away general consideration, nothing
>> I could now prove close up.
> Lua is designed to be inside, not outside. In Ubuntu Lucid there
> are 2000 packages with "python" on their names, most of them
> reinventions of the wheel or bindings for libraries so you can
> reinvent the wheel for yourself. They're written by Python
> fundamentalists. That's not the Lua way. Lua says: leave the
> hardware and the time-critical code to C (or whatever), but do
> the user configuration and intricate logic in Lua. The end user
> does not even need to know you've linked in the Lua library.
> Sure, we all write stand-alone Lua applications, I've plenty of
> files starting #!/usr/bin/lua, but that's for prototyping and
> non-redistributable programs.
My 200+ KLOC of Lua code do not agree with this assumption.