Re: Re[2]: Lua's opportunity

["Andrew Wilson" <agrwagrw@...>]

Right, nobody wants complicated installers, but a zipped up directory
structure with lua binaries, modules, help documents, samples scripts
and a script file to set a couple of environment variables would make a
nice lua style install package that I could point someone at and say
here's lua, install it and read PIL. AGRW

On 12/27/06, Alen Ladavac <alenl-ml@croteam.com > wrote:

> For me, a reduced learning curve is the path to maximum productivity. As for
> a swiss-army knife language, I think lua is pretty close. Lua has scattered
> sets of information,bringing those sets together in a single install would
> make Lua better. Now that modules exist, a standard install package can be
> put together for Lua. But what should be in the "standard package", who is
> going to do it? And maybe more importantly how is that work to be organized?

About that installer... lua standalone is excellent in the simple form
that it has right now - a single executable. It can be copied around
and will work without any installation. Requiring complicated
installation and a lot of files is a serious downside, and the
greatest reason why we don't use python, perl, etc internally for
scripting.

So, a set of blessed libraries = good, requiring them to be installed
separately ( i.e. not integrated into lua.exe) = bad.

JM2C,
Alen