Re: Lua on Windows: lua51.dll versus lua5.1.dll

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

Shmuel Zeigerman <shmuz@bezeqint.net> wrote:
> Thomas Lauer wrote:
> > I am amazed that this issue hasn't been resolved (and RIPped) long ago.
> 
> But who's duty is to resolve the issue?
> 
> It's clearly not an issue of Lua as a language. It's just a consequence 
> of (a very popular) LuaBinaries once releasing lua5.1.dll that became a 
> de facto binary standard, then authors of many third-party Lua libraries 
> were releasing binary packages compatible with LuaBinaries.

Well, any usable language is much more than its definition. That's why I
wrote in my other post about "a new language *and* its environment".

Arguably, the designers of the language (Lua) could and should have
given some basic guidance as to its implementation (ie lua or lua.exe,
luaXYZ.so/dll etc.) on the main platforms. At least they did so for the
library which is clearly also not an issue of Lua as a language.

It boils down to establishing a few ground rules: they're not really
necessary in any technical sense but they make life much easier for
everone (and novices in particular).

My 2 cent.

-- 
cheers  thomasl

web: http://thomaslauer.com/start