Re: Bloat or no bloat? (Was: [Feature request])

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 1:41 AM, Tim Hill <drtimhill@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sep 21, 2014, at 11:20 PM, Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:

>> Actually, the main point of my post was not to provide a Bourbakian
>> definition of "bloat" but to say that supporting ideas that Roberto has
>> already indicated he is considering is may well be a productive way
>> of getting new features into Lua.
>
> This is bloat: a recipe to get new features into Lua, regardless what
> you think about them :-)
>
> -- Roberto
>

Now come, come. As others have said “bloat” is somewhat subjective. I would offer my own interpretation: “good” features are those that extend the language geometrically, while “poor” features are those that extend it linearly. I would argue that historically this has been the primary criteria for adding features. And many of the “lively” discussions here been about if a feature is geometric or linear.

This is not a critique btw, it’s a complement.

—Tim

This is a common property amongst the most interesting advancements in Lua.

Because it fun to talk about the meta, I'll add my own:

Designing a language is hard. It's even harder when you're told how you should design it.

-Andrew