Re: Why isn't Lua more widely used?

[Elias Barrionovo <elias.tandel@...>]

Another thing that sometimes bothers the mainstream is Lua's somewhat
'do it yourself' aproach to object oriented programming, which I
actually think is very cool.

On 1/29/12, Axel Kittenberger <axkibe@gmail.com> wrote:
> Short Answer: Random and because Lua never aspired to be a language
> for the masses.
>
> Long Answer: First lets say, there is no way or method to find an
> exact answer to this, so all than can be done are assumptions and at
> best thumb rules.
>
> Secondly often enough it does boil down to single persons showing
> devotion to a goal or them not being, so too often we seek structural
> explanations and variables when its actually more random. Suppose for
> example Mike Pall would have decided to invest his time differently,
> and we'd likely have no LuaJIT at all, people would ask, why has Lua
> no JIT? And we'd come up with all kind of structural explanations. So
> a while ago some guy withing the Netscape/Mozilla development decided
> to develop Javascript. Javascript had then some fight with VBScript
> and turned out as the winner. Just no one bothered to write a Lua
> Plugin back then, and no one bothers today to extend one of the Open
> Source Browsers with LuaScript as well as writting a Lua Runtime
> Emulation in Javascript. Its not impossible, its just a lot of work
> and just no one did it. While there have been some laudable efforts to
> create a Lua "batteries included" scripting platform, this quite
> didn't reach a critical mass.
>
> Add to the single person centered computer language dissemination is a
> self-amplifying process, people tend to pick rather well known
> languages and thus make language more well known. This creates another
> random variable if you have several competing language and see which
> one will be "the biggest" after a while.
>
> Third reason I assume is Lua never tried to look appealing for the
> masses-taste out there. You got some Zeitgeist that thinks how
> languages should look like, today many languages try to cater for that
> independent if the Zeitgeist is actually the best solution there is,
> sometimes the second best, popular solution would be the better, since
> it would get more support. Comparing to Javascript I say:
>
>   JavaScript syntax looks cool on first sight, but semantics turns out
> quite dirty down to near broken when you're embracing it further.
>   Lua syntax looks uncool on first sight, but semantics turns out
> quite pretty and elegant when you're embracing it further.
>
> Of course if something looks "cool" or "uncool" is so much subjective
> as can be, and I nearly see someone already objecting in a knee-jerk
> reaction to this very statement. Anyway, the temporal mainstream has
> its ideas how languages should look like, and Lua never cared for
> that. Also as many language discussions go, this also turns much
> around syntax and hardly goes into semantics. But many when chosing a
> language also decide on syntax level, just what looks more appealing
> to them.
>
> Lua has a Pascal-ish look, while since the Pascal-C-Wars in the
> 1980ies turned out to C favors big time, C-look is considered more
> cool.
> Lua has ~= while mainstream coders are used to !=
> Lua has no switch statement, while mainstream coders like it to
> organize their code, even in JS its effectively not a computed jump
> like in C but a interpreted as a series of chained if statement in
> another form.
> Lua has 1-based arrays, while mainstream prefers 0.
> Lua has a peculiar refusal on continue, while mainstream misses it and
> complains about it.
> Lua has global by default, while mainstream first wants local and more
> contemporary most language develop to no default. While this can be
> done with Metatabling G_ it requires to have embraced it deeper.
> Lua has no POSIX ability built in, even not with a compile time
> switch, making the standard more than limited and making any
> extension-library unintuative for the user, since unless you are
> deeper in informatics on a normal computer you do not care what is in
> ANSI and what is in POSIX, and why they need different prefixes.
> etc.
>
> This shouldn't be understood as extensive critique, Lua has its
> strengths and its nice, but IMHO it can be explained why its no mass
> language, because it was never targeted to the big mass or cared what
> the mainstream mass wants. It has its set of peculiarities and anyone
> of these can turn an aspirant off before s/he went deep enough to see
> over that.
>
> On Sat, Jan 28, 2012 at 10:47 AM, sergei karhof <karhof21@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Why isn't Lua more widely used?
>> Granted, being a script language, Lua can only hope for a niche
>> position, and can never become as popular as C or C++.
>> However, why is Lua *so much* underrated, compared to Javascript, for
>> instance? Could not Lua be used in browsers and do as much a good job
>> as Javascript? I mentioned browsers, but my point is more general.
>>
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

NI!