[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Ruby philosophy vs Lua philosophy
- From: Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:48:40 -0600
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Aaron B. <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> My prescription is to hurry up and wait. I expect de-facto standards
> will form with time as Lua's mindshare and userbase expands. Good
> software - and the communities that support them - take a lot of man
> hours and growing pains. Linux (and *BSD, and Windows, etc) all didn't
> get to what they are by climbing a mountain, they got there by
> constantly dragging themselves towards always-just-out-of-reach ideal,
> an ideal which moves and evolves just as much as the imperfect
> codebase does.
> Aaron B. <email@example.com>
At heart, we do not disagree and what you're saying does not need to
be less than "most important" in order for the essence of what I'm
saying to stand. Perhaps "asshole" == "leader who calls it good, when
discussion should end" in my book, and it just means "asshole" in
But consider Linux, and BSD and Windows, which you use as examples.
Each one had borderline-psychopathic control freaks at the helm.
Not what I would call "asshole-free" environments.
I'll bet you 750 million mythical dollars that if the Lua team were to
collectively take the Myers Briggs personality test, they'd be INTP
I'm not at all a strong leader (although I can pretend like I know
what I'm talking about, which looks like leadership for about 6 months
or so). I've been around some, however. All of them know that not
every decision needs to be 100% correct, but they all need to be
decided. That doesn't happen out in the open, in Lualand.