[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: PUC Lua
- From: Francesco Abbate <francesco.bbt@...>
- Date: Sun, 8 May 2011 22:54:22 +0200
2011/5/8 David Kastrup <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> 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.
For me the question of Henning is legitimate. Lua is the programming
language itself and there is only one of it. For a given programming
language you can have multiple implementations and PUC Lua, LuaJIT and
LuaJIT2 are different implementations of the same programming
language, so the question of Henning is appropriate.
For example for Python they talk about C Python to refer to the main
implementation because Python is the programming language itself and
is not tied to any specific implementation.
For the other side there is may be some confusion about "vanilla Lua",
for me it does just mean the standard PUC Lua implementation *without
any patch*. It is also the reference implementation because is the
original one. It is often appropriate to specify that because many
patched versions of Lua are in use in some specific environments.