Re: Is a Lua system easily embeddable?

[Andre de Leiradella <aleirade@...>]

KHMan wrote:
> [snip]
> I'm glad that there are solutions being offered like the Makefile 
> converter, instead of just yakking and yakking like what I am doing. :-) 
> What would be really useful right now is some sample implementation of 
> bundling complex modules that integrates nicely into the original 
> module's codebase. Then again, the sample solution might be perfect for 
> party X but party Y might jump up and vehemently disagree. And we'll be 
> back to square one... :-)

I agree with you in that it's impossible to satisfy everyone. But we 
shouldn't make things hard for any party.

I think we can all agree that evolving software is easier then the other 
way around. Taking a complex piece of software and trying to make it 
simpler is hard because things get too intricate so removing things 
without breaking the software requires a great amount of work.

Lua is simple, and great and complex things are built on top of it, like 
i.e. Lua for Windows.

Lua modules are complex, and the discussions here in the list proves 
it's hard to make it simple again.

I believe libraries should be simple again. They should compile to 
static libraries and have a clear indication of its dependencies on both 
other libraries and additional Lua code required to use it. The 
developer could then just initialize everything in the proper order to 
have the final product.

On top of that, there could be a build system (LuaRocks?) that can take 
a library and, by using information provided by it, compile it to a 
dynamic library that could just be required to be used in the host 
application.

That way, both parties (people that builds monolithic Lua platforms i.e. 
for embedded devices and people on desktops) will be allowed in the, 
huh, party.

Cheers,

Andre