Re: Lua as a scripting language in NetBSD

[Marc Balmer <marc%msys.ch@localhost>]

Am 18.10.2009 um 15:13 schrieb der Mouse:

> > Finding one good ("best" is subjective, we shouldn't be seeking that)
> > scripting language to include in base seems like it might have
> > advantages, [...]
>
> We've already got two or three good scripting languages in base (for
> lots of use cases' values of "good"; there are use cases they're a  
> poor
> fit for, but that's true of any language).  Do we need more?
>
> Why or why not?
>
> I don't know Lua.  But, based on what's been said here, it sounds to  
> me
> like a solution looking for a problem in this context.  Even assuming
> its touted attributes are real (eg, small libraryable runtime), do we
> really have a need for such a thing?  I certainly don't recall anyone
> wishing out loud that we had, for example, an embeddable programming
> language with a small runtime.

I would not have brought up the issue if I hadn't a need for it.  I do  
not propose this in a "l'art pour l'art" manner; but it is of course  
difficult to propose the addition of a library which is not yet used  
(and which can not be used because it is not there).  The chicken and  
egg situation is actually the fun part of the dilemma..

One goal of my initial mail is to see whether other developers could  
(and would) make use of it if we had it.  Once I collected a few more  
ideas and feedbacks, I can work on a more elaborate proposal.