[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python
- From: Sean Conner <sean@...>
- Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 19:00:39 -0500
It was thus said that the Great Dibyendu Majumdar once stated:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 22:14, Sean Conner <email@example.com> wrote:
> > It was thus said that the Great Andrew Starks once stated:
> > >
> > > The benefit of a standard library, independent/separated from Lua and it’s
> > > development, is clear to me. It’s an idea that has been had before, but
> > > why is it so hard to make it happen?
> > Someone has to do the work (I'm trying, and doing it publically on this
> > list, but I'm getting little feedback). Then people have to use it, which
> > is probably harder than writing it in the first place.
> I am sorry to say this but I think it is a futile exercise because the
> greatest challenge for you will be to convince others that your
> definition of a standard library is better than the libraries they
> already use. Added to this there are various risks:
> a) How can folks be sure the library will be maintained and supported?
How can folks be sure Lua will be maintained and supported?
> b) If Lua team decide to issue a competing incompatible library then
> it would negate all your efforts.
If the Lua team haven't done so by now, I doubt they will any time soon.
> I would suggest instead to make your existing libraries work on
> Windows and Mac OSX; I would be very happy to include them in Suravi.
The ones in pure Lua should just work (on Lua 5.1 and higher ). The
modules in C already work on Mac OS-X (and again, on Lua 5.1 and higher). I
don't have access to a Windows system and so far, have received NO feedback
about the lack of Windows support for my modules, so Windows support isn't
high on my list of things to do .
 I haven't done extensive testing against Lua 5.4 since it's not
officially released yet, but the smoke tests I've done haven't shown
there to be any issues.
 I also effectively have zero Windows development experience.