Lua 5, unlike other foobars, is a complete language from the start. You may see 5.x as 5.a, 5.b, 5.c and so on rather than as “evolution” versions. The second d

Lua 5, unlike other foobars, is a complete language from the start. You may see 5.x as 5.a, 5.b, 5.c and so on rather than as “evolution” versions. The second digit is more like flavor, and as e.g. 5.2 or LuaJIT user you don’t miss 5.4 features. Moreover, some people, me included, find some of 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4 experiments questionable. Why is it so? Usually, when a language unlike Lua “evolves”, it just lacks a flipping lot of core/meta features from the beginning, crutch-adding them later. So users long for 1.x+ version so much, because 1.x is still bullshit, for any x. In case of Lua, its 5.1 version had some flaws, but it already had (arguably) more powerful execution/data model-wise than e.g. python or js, and these flaws were related to what the latter two haven’t had at all (because to them Lua is Lisp, in a sense of blub paradox). Coroutines, environments, metamethods, etc. 5.2 solved all of the remaining problems one way, LuaJIT another way. Upgrading to >5.2 doesn’t really change much in a way it works, but it’s enough to break your existing codebase. So, “especially now” doesn’t have much weight in this case.