Hello

what is the best Lua integration available?

I have found these two so far:
* https://github.com/JakobOvrum/LuaD (only Lua 5.1)
* https://github.com/DerelictOrg/DerelictLua (Lua 5.3)

The former seems better/more active. Are there other similar projects that I am missing?

Thanks

On Wednesday, 16 November 2016 at 22:53:46 UTC, Kim wrote:
> Hello
>
> what is the best Lua integration available?
>
> I have found these two so far:
> * https://github.com/JakobOvrum/LuaD (only Lua 5.1)
> * https://github.com/DerelictOrg/DerelictLua (Lua 5.3)
>
> The former seems better/more active. Are there other similar projects that I am missing?
>
> Thanks

I can't speak for LuaD, but DerelictLua should be perfectly usable. Don't let the lack of activity scare you. It's a binding, the sort of thing that's implemented once and forgotten about except for bug fixes and updates. I updated it earlier this year for Lua 5.3. If people report issues, I'll fix them.

On 17/11/2016 11:53 AM, Kim wrote:
> Hello
>
> what is the best Lua integration available?
>
> I have found these two so far:
> * https://github.com/JakobOvrum/LuaD (only Lua 5.1)
> * https://github.com/DerelictOrg/DerelictLua (Lua 5.3)
>
> The former seems better/more active. Are there other similar projects
> that I am missing?
>
> Thanks

LuaD is a lot more then just a binding. It does have static bindings to Lua. Where as DerelictLua has dynamic bindings (linking is done at runtime to shared libraries).

On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 03:46:26 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> On 17/11/2016 11:53 AM, Kim wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> what is the best Lua integration available?
>>
>> I have found these two so far:
>> * https://github.com/JakobOvrum/LuaD (only Lua 5.1)
>> * https://github.com/DerelictOrg/DerelictLua (Lua 5.3)
>>
>> The former seems better/more active. Are there other similar projects
>> that I am missing?
>>
>> Thanks
>
> LuaD is a lot more then just a binding. It does have static bindings to Lua. Where as DerelictLua has dynamic bindings (linking is done at runtime to shared libraries).

Not to mention much more high level(LuaD).

On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 04:54:02 UTC, Soulsbane wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 03:46:26 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>> On 17/11/2016 11:53 AM, Kim wrote:
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> what is the best Lua integration available?
>>>
>>> I have found these two so far:
>>> * https://github.com/JakobOvrum/LuaD (only Lua 5.1)
>>> * https://github.com/DerelictOrg/DerelictLua (Lua 5.3)
>>>
>>> The former seems better/more active. Are there other similar projects
>>> that I am missing?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>
>> LuaD is a lot more then just a binding. It does have static bindings to Lua. Where as DerelictLua has dynamic bindings (linking is done at runtime to shared libraries).
>
> Not to mention much more high level(LuaD).

Yes I see the higher level as a weakness. It may save you time to integrate in D, but tries to hide complexity. Hiding complexity can hurt in other ways.

I think I will go for the more C-like binding of DerelictLua; I am fine for the shared libraries binding as I don't need static bindings, but I guess that could be added without too much effort?

On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 06:33:06 UTC, Kim wrote:

>
> I think I will go for the more C-like binding of DerelictLua; I am fine for the shared libraries binding as I don't need static bindings, but I guess that could be added without too much effort?

Some of the Derelict bindings already support a static configuration. I intend to add one to DerelictLua in the very near future. I've got a little tool that can convert Derelict-style function pointer declarations into standard function declarations for a static binding, so yeah, it's easy to do.

On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 06:33:06 UTC, Kim wrote:
>
> Yes I see the higher level as a weakness. It may save you time to integrate in D, but tries to hide complexity. Hiding complexity can hurt in other ways.
>
> I think I will go for the more C-like binding of DerelictLua; I am fine for the shared libraries binding as I don't need static bindings, but I guess that could be added without too much effort?

I've worked with both. I prefer DerelictLua, because you have more direct control. But be prepared to deal with Lua stacks and its C API, which can be a bit annoying at times. You'll probably start writing you own D wrappers for convenience (that's where D's templates shine) and end up with something like LuaD - which makes you appreciate LuaD even more.

On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 06:33:06 UTC, Kim wrote:
> Yes I see the higher level as a weakness. It may save you time to integrate in D, but tries to hide complexity. Hiding complexity can hurt in other ways.
>
> I think I will go for the more C-like binding of DerelictLua; I am fine for the shared libraries binding as I don't need static bindings, but I guess that could be added without too much effort?

For your desires Derelict sounds like the best option. I definitely recommend LuaD though. I'm not sure what complexity your concerned about hiding, you're trying to interface with a dynamic language, LuaD provides "high level" functions which handle adding and removing D/Lua objects from the Lua stack and interacting with Lua objects directly. You should still be able to manipulate Lua through the C API, I just don't know why you'd want to put yourself through that.