Re: Lua forwarding DLL

[Thomas Lauer <thomas.lauer@...>]

"Jérôme Vuarand" <jerome.vuarand@gmail.com> wrote:
> I finally created a new page on the wiki to better explain differences
> between my solution and Shmuel's.
> 
> Today I compared my dll with the ones from Shmuel and the one in
> LuaBinaries, and I found several differences:

Three proxies... and counting. To cure one mess we create another?

(That's not at all a diatribe against Jérôme's DLL which is probably the
most clever solution to a problem that shouldn't be there in the first
place (and wouldn't be there if Lua would include an official binary
distribution for Windows).)

> The kind of DLL I craft are the lightest possible, and I don't see any
> advantage in the two other alternatives.

Neither do I. If we have to live with that ghastly proxy business then
PLEASE adopt one standard proxy and be done with it.

(Of course, people can and should write their own private proxies if
they wish to do so. I am talking about what a prospective newcomer sees:
a complete mess. As I already pointed out in another post, getting to
grips with, say, the Lua lexer and parser was easy, compared with Lua's
needlessly complicated DLL/library model.)

-- 
cheers  thomasl

web : http://thomaslauer.com/start