Re: embedding vs extending

["Javier Guerra" <javier@...>]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 4:01 PM,  <darrenjones@warpmail.net> wrote:
> can't really put my finger on it... can anyone give me an example where
> embedding Lua was a better option than extending it?

often it's not that you take a language and then choose to embed or
extend, usually you're developing an application and decide to make it
scriptable, then you look around for embeddable languages.

that said, on my first approaches to Lua, i embedded it in my app; but
soon refactored it until it was very little more than the standard Lua
executable.  so far, all my projects after that were done just
extending the language.

i really like writing small extension modules, sometimes do it just
for fun, without any specific usage in mind.  :-)

but when the majority of users would just 'use' your app, and only a
small fraction would script on it, then the Lua part shouldn't be so
visible.  that's usually easier done by embedding.

think monotone, nmap, apt, Adobe LightRoom, all of them embed Lua, but
don't put it "in your face".  arguably, monotone and LightRoom are
more Lua-driven than 'calling Lua'; but the general impression is that
Lua is not needed for day-to-day use.

-- 
Javier