> it is much more conductive to writing text editor code than the general purpose Lua.
Lua is very much not a general-purpose Language. It can be used like one, but it's a specialized language thought to live inside a "host" application, which it then controls. Which does seem to fit the usecase here.
Would you be able to substantiate your claim that it is more conductive to text editor code?
> it is not unpleasant to use
I'm afraid that is a very low bar. Lua is not unpleasant to use either.
No, I don't feel like substantiating my claims to someone who assumes a default hostile response to me and makes nonsensical readings of what I say.
For instance, when I compare Lua to vim9 script and say the former is general purpose, I am obviously in the context of comparing the one scripting language to the latter. And you know that. And yet, even though you understand the context perfectly, you still choose to write "Lua is very much not a general-purpose Language..." and proceed to patronize me on semantics.
So, will I be able to substantiate? Yes. Will I bother to do so to you? No.
Speaking purely technically here, vim9/L has an actual standard library tailored specifically to Vim. Lua has no standard library and you just end up delegating to vimscript anyway. But ya, if you want to use Lua for whatever reason then it's a pretty hard sell. But that's sorta what OP is getting at... how to make it more attractive.
Lua is very much not a general-purpose Language. It can be used like one, but it's a specialized language thought to live inside a "host" application, which it then controls. Which does seem to fit the usecase here.
Would you be able to substantiate your claim that it is more conductive to text editor code?
> it is not unpleasant to use
I'm afraid that is a very low bar. Lua is not unpleasant to use either.