4 ms·

It would still be lightweight and embeddable with common sense pure Lua functionality like classes and major utility methods like string.startswith/string.endsw

by ebg13 6y ago

It would still be lightweight and embeddable with common sense pure Lua functionality like classes and major utility methods like string.startswith/string.endswith/string.trim/string.split/table.deepcopy. You don't have to integrate a multiprocessing web server for different operating systems. Instead you're left with bullshit community essays like http://lua-users.org/wiki/SplitJoin http://lua-users.org/wiki/SplitJoin which shows pages and pages of different user attempts for one extremely common function, many of which explicitly do not work! Lua has its strengths, but faffing about refusing to just standardize the right way to do things is super user-hostile.

pull_my_finger 6y ago
Lua, by design, favors "mechanisms not policy"[1]. It's not a failing it meant to empower users. There are plenty of mature utility libraries that serve for batteries if you like that. [1] - http://lua-users.org/wiki/MechanismNotPolicy http://lua-users.org/wiki/MechanismNotPolicy
- ebg13 6y ago
  > It's not a failing it meant to empower users. Freedom to implement bespoke solutions is great if what you want to spend your time on is implementing bespoke solutions. Freedom from needing to implement bespoke solutions is better for everyone. Even non-programmers can understand what common simple operations are for and when they might be useful. Saying that one needs to know how to implement or find them as well, especially when a bunch of extremely learned participants in lua-users can repeatedly fail to implement working versions, is literally the opposite of empowering.
  - pull_my_finger 6y ago
    The examples you're listing, I don't use those very often at all. If I did it's much easier to just grab a lib, then to carry all my tools with me for every script. Even the libraries that are included can be cast aside if you want a slim build. Not every language does or should strive to cater to those looking for quick hacking or rapid prototyping. I like that Lua is slim and loads fast. I understand your perspective though.

by ebg13 6y ago

pull_my_finger 6y ago

Lua, by design, favors "mechanisms not policy"[1]. It's not a failing it meant to empower users. There are plenty of mature utility libraries that serve for batteries if you like that. [1] - http://lua-users.org/wiki/MechanismNotPolicy http://lua-users.org/wiki/MechanismNotPolicy

ebg13 6y ago
> It's not a failing it meant to empower users. Freedom to implement bespoke solutions is great if what you want to spend your time on is implementing bespoke solutions. Freedom from needing to implement bespoke solutions is better for everyone. Even non-programmers can understand what common simple operations are for and when they might be useful. Saying that one needs to know how to implement or find them as well, especially when a bunch of extremely learned participants in lua-users can repeatedly fail to implement working versions, is literally the opposite of empowering.
- pull_my_finger 6y ago
  The examples you're listing, I don't use those very often at all. If I did it's much easier to just grab a lib, then to carry all my tools with me for every script. Even the libraries that are included can be cast aside if you want a slim build. Not every language does or should strive to cater to those looking for quick hacking or rapid prototyping. I like that Lua is slim and loads fast. I understand your perspective though.