Re: Interest in Lua Web Plug-in?

[Kein-Hong Man <keinhong@...>]

Graham Wakefield wrote:
> In case you weren't aware, Motion (and FCP) already have a scripting 
> language (FxScript), though it's not interactive as far as I know, and 
> certainly can't run in a browser.

I know that such powerful applications are likely to have such 
programmability features. I was more concerned about barriers to 
entry on the browser side, since a brower-based plugin was 
stipulated. On the application side, you can have very complex 
operations that are easy to script to your heart's content. But 
for a plugin player, what you can achieve in the application is 
constrained by the player. Is it possible to write a player that 
does things better than people who are producing video streams, 
where there are little or no adoption barriers?

I was looking at the issue from the standpoint of an ordinary 
consumer, not a Lua enthusiast. To the former, Lua is just another 
scripting language. But if those proposing this project has the 
resources to pull it off, then by all means, the choice is theirs. 
Or if you manage to sell this idea to a VC manager, better still.

Anyway, this is beginning to go way off-topic, that's why I 
stopped discussing it. I'll believe it when I see it. :-)

> On Mar 3, 2007, at 4:23 AM, Kein-Hong Man wrote:
>
> > Andy Stark wrote:
> > > Lua list <lua@bazar2.conectiva.com.br> writes:
> > > [snip snip]
> > > Far from being limited, I would say that this actually lowers the entry
> > > level since you are effectively writing your own effects plug-ins but
> > > using Lua rather than a complex C/C++ API.
> >
> > I stand corrected. Sounds very ambitious, though. Good luck all the same.
> >
> > --Cheers,
> > Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
> > Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

--
Cheers,
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia