Out of curiosity: is LuaJIT supporting only 5.1 because of technical difficulties imposed by newer versions, or is it simply that the design of newer Lua versions did not appeal to the LuaJIT maintainers?
It's the only edition which is provided for free. This edition uses Lua 5.0, which is very similar to 5.1 which is still very popular as it's targeted by LuaJIT. The changes between 5.1 and 5.2 seem small as well.
Their defence is always that they do not follow semver.
I remember some undocumented edge cases in string match patterns breaking between 5.1 and 5.2. Imagine Python changing how regexes worked between two minor releases.
Yes. The differences between 5.0 and 5.1 are small and I do not recommend using newer versions, regardless.
Out of curiosity: is LuaJIT supporting only 5.1 because of technical difficulties imposed by newer versions, or is it simply that the design of newer Lua versions did not appeal to the LuaJIT maintainers?
Mike Pall (LuaJIT author/maintainer) is not happy with some of the design decisions and (breaking) changes:
https://www.freelists.org/post/luajit/Port-bitop-to-53,1
The biggest issue certainly is the addition of integer types.
Why? Only because of luajit?
most likely,also sadly
2 replies →
It's the only edition which is provided for free. This edition uses Lua 5.0, which is very similar to 5.1 which is still very popular as it's targeted by LuaJIT. The changes between 5.1 and 5.2 seem small as well.
Of course, there is also this (quote from the site):
> If you find this online version useful, please consider buying a copy of the current edition. This helps to support the Lua project.
> The changes between 5.1 and 5.2 seem small as well.
And then after 5.1, basically every minor version (5.2, 5.3, so on) have major changes between them, from what I recall.
Their defence is always that they do not follow semver.
I remember some undocumented edge cases in string match patterns breaking between 5.1 and 5.2. Imagine Python changing how regexes worked between two minor releases.
1 reply →