27 August 2026
Lua does have its drawbacks.
And they're mostly described in the "gotcha" list: https://www.luafaq.org/gotchas.html
But as always, the KISS rule applies here.
Follow KISS and you don't need any overcomplications.
You know, I don't even use debuggers. Because there are enough logs.
And if you write code even more simply, then a couple of prints will be enough.
YoutoWhat do you think of Make/CMake? And some lua substitue like xmake/luamake?
Luamake? What it should do? Compress scripts into one bundle?
YoutoNo. Just write a lua scriipt to call gcc/clang or other compilers. Just like makefile
Why Lua? Why so few languages? Why not brainfuckmake?
++++++++[>++++[>++>+++>+++>+<<<<-]>+>+>->>+[<]<-]>>.>---.+++++++..+++.>>.<-.<.+++.------.--------.>>+.>++.
YoutoLua is much better for "build script" than bash & make & CMake.
The cmake standard already exists. It doesn't matter that "something else is better" or something.
Its existence already covers all needs and this is the standard unlike thousands of "commandgen scripts in other languages".
SnusmumrikenBut you contain in your head a multitude of poorly substantiated criteria of "ugliness" : )
In fact I will change my poorly criteia anytime.
10. I will be open to dissenting views
The situation with make/cmake is actually quite simple.
It's a standard. Therefore, anyone interested in building applications is familiar with it and can adapt it to their needs.
If the build is performed by a library in a language, this means that in order to read and edit it, you force your users to:
1. Install an interpreter for the language you use for building.
2. Learn that language.
3. Learn the specific make-library you used.
This is rude to your users. Nobody asked you to force them to study something they don't need just to fix your makescript for their needs.
YoutoIn fact I think bash & make & CMake are all rubbish.
Could u elaborate, please ? I am interested in bash and make especially. I mean why u think those are rubbish ?