 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
Luís Eduardo Jason Santos wrote:
I second the importance of this feature as an end user whose not into C, it's been years since I've seriously used it. Again my experience is from ActiveState Perl as I haven't yet used LFW though will, I find PPM binary packages a huge advantage compared to Java, Python and. yes, Lua. I can rest assured that whatever I get from a repository does work straight out of the box, with 0 configuration and path management, and doesn't force me to dabble with make files, install all the MS VC freebies, etc... The PPM CLI, especially the old interactive one, is so easy to use I've succesfully instructed non-programmers to do it, too, to get a script running.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 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).
I'm not sure if it's a good analogy, but I'd liken the situation to *nix package management apt-get Vs the Gentoo style of building straight from source. For people who don't know what they're doing, the former is definitely easier. Whether the manager is graphical is secondary, though the CLI would be definitely accessible and easier to automate.
Not doing much C doesn't mean I'd be a bad Lua or Perl programmer as such, I hope, <grin>. But especially when you're coding recreationally, getting something up and running quickly and easily is just great. It keeps programming fun if you will.
Thought I'd put in my two Euro cents, though I must confess I don't know much about the underlying issues making building stuff on WIn32 comparatively hard.
-- With kind regards Veli-Pekka Tätilä Accessibility, Apps and Coding plus Synths and Music: http://vtatila.kapsi.fi