[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: new releases [was Re: Official public code repository]
- From: Stephen Kellett <lua@...>
- Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2007 10:50:21 +0000
Tim Kelly wrote:
The leader in the Lua scenario is effectively the Queen bee, setting the
direction etc, but absolutely replacable in the event of the Queen bee's
Ok. By whom?
I thought that would be self evident by now. By the community. Same as
in the hive I just described. You want the benefits of commercial
support without apparently wanting to pay for it. In the absence of
that, you have to accept that the community does what the community
does. I would be amazed if in the event of the demise of the current
leadership that some other leadership did not happen. Who that will be
can only be found out in the fullness of time.
Should I be wrong about your unwillingness to pay for it, there are
plenty of people here that will be willing, for a fee, to provide you
with support. Just ask (I will not be one of them).
If you don't like that you can go the commercial route and witness the
fate (as others have already mentioned) of Visual Basic users: They have
a choice of:
A) Migrate to Visual Basic.Net with all the costs associated with
learning .Net (non trivial to your average VB user and a fair bit of
work for an experienced VB software engineer). Its a major discontinuity.
B) Use a third party product (name escapes me, seen it in a Dr Dobbs
add) which is supposedly VB compatible
C) Continue without support and no access to the VB source code.
With Lua your options are:
A) Migrate to an arbitrary other language with all the costs associated
with it. Non trivial.
B) Continue with the Lua community.
C) Continue without support and but with access to the Lua source code -
Take the Lua source in house and maintain it yourself (thus solving the
support issue). Take a look at the source, its the smallest of all the
scripting languages out there, by quite a margin.
Seems like Lua offers an equivalent (A) or better (B, C) options.
C is blatantly obvious, but you appear to discount that option as
expensive. But why is archiving something to CD Rom expensive? If it
isn't broken you have nothing to fix and thus nothing to maintain. You
don't take your car's engine apart for a full rebuild for the sake of
it, you do that if a piston breaks (highly unlikely). But that is the
cost you appear to be placing on it.
Frankly, having read your other replies (recurring revenue stream by
forcing unwanted and unnecessary change on your customers *) I have
little doubt you will find anything here that suits your needs. People
using Lua want to get things done, done right, done once. No need to
repeat yourself for the wrong reason. Looking at the most development
communities from C++ to Python to Ruby, I find the same thing.
Re: Your business wants change answers. Could not disagree more. The
only reason people flit from technology to technology is either because
they haven't found what they need or they are "headless chicken" mode
and have little clue what they really need, or you are dealing with
bankers, who for some strange reason always want to be on the bleeding
edge of technology. My experience of a wide variety of companies is that
they choose their technologies carefully and stick to the choice, only
adding (adding, not replacing) new technologies when the technology is
appropriate for serving a new class of customer and adds to the business.
You've been given plenty of useful answers. Sadly you seem to only want
to hear "roadmap this, roadmap that". You've already been told that
Adobe, the dominant vendor of graphical software tools uses Lua. If they
are sold on it (despite having two in house languages (Flex and AIR))
what is the problem?
The problem appears to be that you want a roadmap. And people to stand
behind it, like in multi-million dollar organisations such as Microsoft
I cna't help thinking this desire for roadmaps is to avoid any
responsibility for a decision. A roadmap provides the ability to pass
the buck should something go wrong. "Oh but we used this roadmap, it
said such and such. I take no blame for any errors in my decisions".
Thats about as helpful as all these banks that sold sub-prime mortgages
as "collateralised debt obligations" creating fake money that only comes
back to bite them in the backside with $10 billion write offs (and a lot
of damage to the economy on both sides of the Atlantic).
We didn't need a roadmap when making the decisions to port our software
application of the grey matter inside our heads and the responsiblity
accept that there is some element of risk in all decisions in life. If
there had been a roadmap we may have examined it to check that it was
going roughtly where we expected it to go, but that is more to spot new
opportunities than to absolve ourself of any errors in planning.
(*) Our customers get changes that improve the software, not
un-necessary ones to generate revenue.