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

["Luís Eduardo Jason Santos" <jasonsantos@...>]

I can't agree with that.

Luarocks has an use case that allows one to build binary modules that
are readily available without compilation.

You can't really do it for *nix because on that platform it's easier
to find build tools than library dependencies.. but windows is another
matter completely. You can build-in (almost) everything you need into
your own DLL.

So, I believe having a bunch of binary rocks that can install easily
on windows as simple as to find somebody to build them all (once for
each runtime available, I think).
--
Luís Eduardo Jason Santos


On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Andrew Wilson <agrwagrw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
> >