RE: mathlib

[Thijs Schreijer <thijs@...>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org [mailto:lua-l-bounces@lists.lua.org] On
> Behalf Of Dirk Laurie
> Sent: maandag 7 april 2014 21:39
> To: Lua mailing list
> Subject: Re: mathlib
> 
> 2014-04-07 21:16 GMT+02:00 Hisham <h@hisham.hm>:
> > On 7 April 2014 15:40, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> 2014-04-07 20:36 GMT+02:00 Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@inf.puc-
> rio.br>:
> >>>> 3. A depressing feeling that Lua is going in a direction that
> >>>> is by design unsympathetic to those who know a little more
> >>>> mathematics than they teach you at school.
> >>>
> >>> That is ridiculous.
> >>
> >> It is ridiculous by design, in order to have something just as ridiculous
> >> as reason 3 for preferring removal: "A warm feeling under the heart that
> >> creeping featurism is being combated by removing some features."
> >
> > Except that creeping featurism _is_ combated by removing features.
> > People are asking for features to be added and are being granted that;
> > to keep the language small, sometimes things have to go away. Lua is
> > adding important features.
> 
> Comments were invited from lua-l for a proposal that started off:
> "We are considering removing some functions from the standard
> math lib". The impression I got was that the question was still
> open, that comments on the list this way or that would influence
> the decision.
> 
> There has been more negative reaction, in stronger language too,
> to every point raised in favour of keeping the functions, from PUC-Rio
> than from any of the users elsewhere. The one point that is hard to
> argue against, that the saving in executable size is less that 0.1%,
> has been ignored.
> 
> This suggests that in fact the decision has already been taken. If that
> is the case, please tell us so, then we can close this discussion.

+1  (please)