Re: new releases [was Re: Official public code repository]

[Ralph Hempel <rhempel@...>]

Tim Kelly wrote:
> Hi Hans,

> 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.

No, but  ask any programmer that has had to deal with the
constant updates to the MS database engines and then ask
if they might have been better served with MySQL...

> 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.

Sometimes the evolution comes with a break from the past, so
you end up stuck anyways.

> 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?

Ummm, just because there is no expensive ANSI doc does not mean
that it has no specification. The Lua interpreter source IS the
Lua interpreter. Why would anyone modify that unless there was
actually a bug?

Arguably, there are multiple Lua interpreters, depending on which
compiler was used to build the executable :-)

Have a look at the Lua code - it is a model of evolved design and
it's entirely possible for a programmer to get their arms around
the design and tweak it if necessary.

> 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.

In technology, we have a different mindset - if it's not broken don't
break it :-) It keeps developers sane and requires MUCH less
resources.

> 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.

It's probably because you may be used to dealing with an entirely
different scale of "software products" - I think the MBAs call
it Enterprise Scale!

Sometimes Lua's simplicity is its greatest problem. People just don't
understand that am entire language, the docs, source, and even
executables could fit on a floppy (if they know what a floppy is)

I had a problem explaining that my pbLua for LEGO MINDSTORMS did
not require anything more complicated than a terminal emulator on
the host. People wanted IDEs and huge downloads :-)

If you want a relatively trouble free development language to
base future products on, then download the source and archive it
on your own company network. The last official release has very
few bugs against it, and again, you'll have a fairly large
community of Lua experts to draw on even if all three of the
principal developers have catastrophic issues (heaven forbid).

> > (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.

That's not answering the question, it just justifies the reason
that they are allowed to weigh in on technological decisions :-)

Ralph