Re: Lua for Windows: Why not use LuaRocks instead?

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

Matt

Original motivation of LfW was for single .exe  installer to allow
people to easily try out Lua.  Linux mindset is build your own.
Windows mindset is click to install, so LfW is tuned to click to
install. LfW is more aimed at programmers interested in trying Lua as
a standalone scripting language.

LuaRocks is the right solution for building from source, but requires
more tools (compilers,linkers), setup (libs,headers)  & runtime
compatibilities to use.

A goal for LfW is to work with LuaRocks. We're still trying to figure
that all out.

Cheers
Andrew


On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Matt Campbell <mattcampbell@pobox.com> wrote:
> I've been watching the recent mailing list discussions on Lua for Windows.
>  I wonder why there is a desire for this kind of "batteries included"
> distribution, in light of LuaRocks.  It seems to me that instead of trying
> to include every library under the moon, it would be better to just include
> Lua, LuaRocks, and SciTE.  A GUI front-end to install rocks might be nice,
> but then we're talking about a tool for programmers here; it seems to me
> that a command-line interface shouldn't be a problem.  Thoughts?
>
> Matt
>