[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Ruby philosophy vs Lua philosophy
- From: Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>
- Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 03:31:51 -0600
On Feb 28, 2013, at 1:06, steve donovan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> It's not a dismal situation, really. The language continues to excel
> in the embedded space, although there are those of us who like Lua for
> 'desktop' work. Documentation (especially meta-documentation)
> continues to be an issue. As a participant in a Lambda-the-Ultimate
> discussion about the importance of libraries said: "it's a social
> problem, and if I was more social I could do something about it"
> steve d/
All of it well said, Steve, as usual.
I don't want anyone to be left with the impression that I think that
the core Lua team is where an organizational push should come from,
and I recognize that my Linux examples may reasonably be taken as
I also concede that Linus represents the Lua Team's determination to
keep Lua the way it is (a great thing) and that perhaps the stage that
its web presence / accessibility / ecosystem is in may be more about
the organic realities of open source.
It is a social "thing" (not problem). I did sound bitchy, and my
intent wasn't to bitch.
I just wanted to say that I like to show people Lua. It's very
difficult getting them past the fact that, in my experience, many
parts of their introduction to Lua have been a pain in the ass,
compared to every other alternative that they think they have, even
when the eventual goal is to embed it into a large project. Most often
they just want to kick the tires and take it for a quick spin.
Usually hard things like this take an organizational push and as has
been pointed out many times, the lack of a relatively-developed
desktop scripting ecosystem is a reasonable price to pay for what Lua
Very sorry for feathers ruffled,
"As we get older, and stop making sense..."