[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: PUC Lua
- From: David Kastrup <dak@...>
- Date: Sun, 08 May 2011 21:45:51 +0200
Henning Diedrich <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I am frequently writing docs that discuss differences and similarities
> between the original Lua and LuaJIT.
> People like calling the original, 'vanilla' and all kinds of tender
People like all sorts of things that are not a good idea. That does not
make them a good idea.
> Trying to write neutral stuff, I keep falling back to talk about "Lua"
> and "LuaJIT", which technically makes no sense but intuitively seems
> to be the least confusing and bloated way to make the distinction.
> Maybe it's time for the makers to choose a name, even if it should
They have chosen the name "Lua".
> Or are "Lua" and "LuaJIT" fair labels, given how LuaJIT keeps moving
> away from the original?
> I am opting for PUC Lua, which is in all Copyright tags, but still not
> immediately clear to everyone.
Pristine TeX is called TeX, pristine Emacs is called Emacs. It is not
the job of the originators to let themselves be bullied around by the
naming choices of downstream recipients. It's not actually any use
either, since there is an unlimited supply of them.