[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: new releases [was Re: Official public code repository]
- From: Tim Kelly <gtkelly@...>
- Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 13:16:13 -0800
> actually lua being developped in an academic environment (already for
> many years) gives me a very comfortable feeling; add to that the fact
> that the language went though several stages, reaching a pretty mature
> state by now
I agree with appreciating that Lua is developed within an academic environment. However, that isn't reassuring to business managers. The reality is that open source projects are only acceptable if there is a clear cut profit motive (i.e. Red Hat sells service contracts). Clearly the environment for proposing open source solutions is much better than only a few years ago, but it is still difficult to compete with a solution based on Microsoft's C# (as mentioned in another email). MS isn't going away any time soon.
> (5 years is a long time, many software companies don't last that long,
> sell themselves, change product lines ...)
I don't agree. That is what appeals to business managers - if a company has to constantly "evolve" their product to continue a revenue stream, that in itself is motivation for continued development, and therefore continued support. Five years is not a long time for a project lifetime. "Middle aged" is how I would refer to it.
> since lua is written in c and since you have so many compilers ... no
> need to worry then
This appears to be misunderstood. "Lua" compiles, if the Lua code isn't broken, but Lua is not a standalone language specification like C is. The Lua interpreter might compile but be broken. Are there alternative Lua interpreters?
> > I am aware of the long history of Lua, and I mean no disrespect, but those are not reassuring statements, not to MBA types.
> walk into your MBA's office and watch around ... i bet that there are
> items in there that haven't changes in many years and that they never
> complained about that
That's not how it works. In business, "change is good, it's hip, it's happening, the company is forward-looking and on top of new technologies." That's why there is a phrase "buzzword-compliant." I'm not arguing in favor of this - quite the opposite, it infuriates me but I still have to overcome it when bidding on projects. I don't have to overcome it if I pitch PHP or Perl or MS. They don't stand still.
There's even a certain amount of self-contradiction in the responses. I've been accused of being unreasonable, asking for a document signed in blood, and asking for the Moon, because five years is too long to expect to rely on a product. By extension, then, I should not expect to rely on Lua for five years. (And yes, I have had to answer a client's question "What happens if you get hit by a bus tomorrow and die?" as part of the bid process. That's the difference between being an employee and an independent business owner.)
What I am looking for is a "roadmap" that says official releases will be available, these are the people in place to ensure the servers are up and running, here is a list of bugs to be addressed, here is why stability is not "end-of-lifed." I am puzzled that such a simple request is met with such responses.
> (btw, what gives these MBA types the impression that they know what they
> are dealing with and/or qualified to have an opinion about? ok, maybe
> 'lua' reminds them of abandoned travel-to-the-moon projects)
They approve the bids and write the checks.
"Anything war can do, peace can do better." -- Desmond Tutu