My first real job after school was working on Lua (5.1a mostly) in an embedded context. It was much faster than iterating on the QT C++ application that the Lua

My first real job after school was working on Lua (5.1a mostly) in an embedded context. It was much faster than iterating on the QT C++ application that the Lua was embedded in. It would, eventually, even allow us to do custom targeted push updates to our software (in 2009). So I love Lua. I appreciate its speed and its flexibility. I think of it as Javascript's easy to use cousin. Straightforward to write and debug - you control the entire environment. I also think this idea is deeply silly: >People who want batteries want a ready-made powertool full of opinions. They are not looking towards Lua in the context that Lua wants to exist. I would have loved ready-made powertools! I wouldn't include all the tools in my toolkit (and we already added some by building our own Lua with a few patches), but it sure would have saved me time writing them (and writing them badly as I was just out of school). I don't think a complicated, robust library would hurt Lua's mission and I'm sad to see this attitude in the community. I understand that Lua may be too small to support a "big" set of official libraries, but I think the idea that offering fewer options is better than more options is wrong.