Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

[Lorenzo Donati <lorenzodonatibz@...>]

On 17/01/2020 09:03, Marc Balmer wrote:
> > Am 15.01.2020 um 16:59 schrieb Lorenzo Donati
> > <lorenzodonatibz@tiscali.it>:
> >
> > Hi all!
> >
> > On a recent thread ("Dead Batteries" ) I argued that Lua lost
> > terrain over Python.
[ snip]

> I usually pick my tools to fit the work at hand, not by means of what
> is currently en vogue...

Exactly!

And what I reported seemed to indicate that a great majority in the 
world find Python more apt at solving their problems than Lua.

Unless you think all those Python programmers/users are funny people 
that choose a language using the criteria they would when choosing a 
fancy new scarf.

Python is no longer a "new kid on the block", which may look cool to 
someone. It has been shunned by many (me too) in the years for various 
reasons. But now it has reached a critical mass of users that allowed it 
to show all its capabilities and "self market" itself.

One could argue ad infinitum, but the hard data show that more and more 
people find Python solves their problems "better" [1] than Lua. And Lua 
is losing user base on a daily basis (at least in relative numbers).

[1] "better" meaning: more readily, more thoroughly, more rapidly, more 
whatever. Heck! They might not even know Lua exists for what matters.

One of the strength of C that makes it so widespread and a good 
investment is the huge codebase/userbase, despite being quite ugly and 
dangerous. But when you learn it you know that in 10 years time your 
competences won't go down the drain because some new hyped language will 
substitute it (not even C++ has succeeded in one of its initial goal to 
be the "next C").

In the same way, IMO, I think Python now is here to stay.

One may argue Python is a worse language than Lua (as I do, wrt. the 
core language and its implementation). But as "fitting the work at hand" 
Lua is becoming irrelevant.

Ask yourself: would you (a company) prefer a Python solution that is 
bloated and slow, but still "fast enough", well supported (because 
"everyone" know Python) and that is created in 10 days, or an equivalent 
Lua solution that takes 2 month to be created and that cannot be 
supported long term because you don't even know where to find an 
alternative Lua dev in your area would the need arise? Not to mention 
the level of support of libraries.

Again, Lua is better at some things, but that doesn't make it a "good" 
general purpose PL (and being Turing complete doesn't count in practice) 
if people don't /use/ it as a GP-PL.

And, btw, this huge user base means that Python use is growing even in 
areas where Lua definitely shine: embedding. I find more and more 
projects that use Python as embedded language. I can't say how difficult 
is to embed Python, but I'm sure that if the demand grows, someone in 
the Python community will find a way to make it simpler.

Then Lua would lose another edge.

I really think Lua Team should reconsider some of their positions on the 
development model of Lua, otherwise they risk a slow descent into 
irrelevance in the PL landscape in a couple of years (except maybe some 
very limited niches).

Its an hard reality of open source projects, their success depend 
heavily on user base.

Cheers!

-- Lorenzo