Re: [ANN] Lua 5.3.0 (work2) now available

[Jerome Vuarand <jerome.vuarand@...>]

2014-03-25 19:39 GMT+00:00 Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br>:
>> The important thing is that algorithms implemented in other languages
>> should be straightforwardly portable. Having an algorithm that needs
>> changed for Lua and Lua alone is the violation of the principle of
>> least surprise.
>
> This would also be a good argument.

Is it really? If any algorithm is straightfowardly portable from
language A to language B (and, by extension, vice versa), what is the
point of having these two languages rather than keeping just one?

On the contrary, I think we should thrive to make our own decisions
based on the particular goal balance that we want for Lua (even though
everyone has an opinion on where to steer that balance). If we lose
some algorithm portability, we might gain some new algorithms that are
not available to other languages.

Note that this is not to argue in favour of one shift semantic or
another, I personnally don't have an opinion on the subject (beyond
that I'd rather not have bitwise operators :D).