[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 14:38:18 -0800
> i recognize this argument (what happens if you drive of the road thing)
> ... the best argument/answer is: there are experienced users out there,
> just take a look at the mailing list(s) and for sure you can find
> someone who will help you out (given proper payment)
This still goes back to relying on an informal network of developers, and also is not exactly what I am asking. I do not see a lack of people that can write code in Lua. What I am concerned with is the official structure of Lua's developer core. Explaining in the future to a prospective client that Lua is an archipelago of developers with their own little ecosystem versions of Lua isn't going to assure them of anything.
You yourself suggested that perhaps Lua is completed. Perhaps then Lua's core should examine the question of long-term existence. In business, this is known as "succession plans," where there is clear documentation of what happens when key individuals leave. The lua.org web page says they have to show usage of Lua as part of their justification. What happens if their funding dries up or is slashed? I assume Roberto has tenure, but what if his supply of grad students shrinks? How far is Roberto from retirement, seeing how he's been doing this for fourteen years?Where is the structure that ensures up-to-date, patched source code is available? Should an independent (lua-users.org) group offer a CVS with snapshots?
I'm not saying these things as criticisms. These are fundamentals to any successful project that sticks around for more than a brief period of time. If they have been addressed, please show me where so I can move on. If they have not been addressed, it is not unreasonable to ask that they be and quite simply fatal if not.
What does Lua plan to do in order to still be a viable project in five years?
> btw, this is much cheaper for them then paying MS for continuing
> development of C#
Cost is irrelevant. I've had a harder time justifying the fact that I can do it for a fourth of the cost than many of my competitors (that use MS/Oracle/et al). In business, charging big is more credible than being cost-effective. I already stated it was a "perverse mentality."
"Anything war can do, peace can do better." -- Desmond Tutu