[ufo]

Lua's lack of a stdlib is also a curse. I can't imagine how many incompatible versions of string.trim and OOP libraries are out there in the wild right now...

Things have been getting better lately because of Luarocks but its still an uphill battle.

[wahern]

String trim is just:

  foo:gsub("%s*$", "")

or

  foo:gsub("^%s*", "")

The standard idiom for OOP in Lua is a one-liner:

  return setmetatable(self, mt)

where mt.__index has all the methods. How you assign to mt.__index can vary across modules according to style, but that's a _purely_ asethetic issue. The mechanics are identical. Using a module to accomplish it creates a useless dependency.

There are many criticisms one could make of Lua, but I don't think those two particular criticisms are legit. They're classic bikeshedding.

[ufo]

The function you presented that trims to the right has quadratic runtime behavior if your string has a long sequence of spaces that is not at the end of the string. For example, "a b". A similar performance bug was behind a 30 minute downtime at stackoverflow.com, because a code snippet with 20 thousand spaces inside a comment showed up on their frontpage.

See, its not that simple :) http://lua-users.org/wiki/StringTrim

Anyway, I wasn't trying to say bad things about Lua with my examples. Its just that if you go to any large Lua project out there there is a very good chance you will find some "utils" module in there with yet another reimplementation of a lot of these common functions. Ideally we should have people reusing more stuff from Luarocks than they are right now.

[JoshTriplett]

If you're reading a pile of string processing code, seeing

    s.rstrip()

helps make code self-documenting, compared to

    s:gsub("%s*$", "")

I don't want to argue for a massive standard library (for instance, I don't think Python should have shipped modules for dbm, bdb, sqlite, or XML-RPC), but simple string processing seems like a good thing to standardize.

[brandonbloom]

String processing is never simple. Simply identifying "what is whitespace?" is a big undertaking in Unicode.

Lua's philosophy seems to be to include the absolute minimum that is unacceptably painful to omit. This is a perfectly reasonable tradeoff for Lua's primary use case: embedding.

With respect to strings in particular, most systems that Lua is embedded in has its own string type, or inherits one from a framework. This is an unfortunate reality of the C/C++ world.

Returning to my point about language standard libraries: The lack of a traditional "standard library" is a feature for Lua, but only because Lua has a strong FFI and C API that acts as a "bring your own standard library" mechanism. It's less about needing a standard library, and more about admitting a language is only one piece of the puzzle. For a language to flourish, you need to have some story for interfacing with the rest of the world in a rich way.