[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua Foundation?
- From: Andrew Starks <andrew@...>
- Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2017 10:52:28 -0500
On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:36 AM, fiosoftware <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Lua is small, beautiful, powerful. If it fits the needs, the developer will
> discover it in the end. Like lisp, has been re-discovered many times.
I agree with you completely and I would hate to anything jeopardize
this property of Lua.
> Stick a "foundation" tag on it make it better? Or just vote out a chairman
> for the foundation - I feel sick of this idea even when connect Lua with the
> word Foundation.
Me too. I would hate it if someone replaced PUC/Lua's work with some
sort of foundation.
Are you saying the existence of an independent project, which you are
free to ignore, would be something that you would feel compelled to
> The Lua authors have done great in the past. And they're making the language
> they like to use - and luckily a lot of others feel the same.
I agree but this is orthogonal to the question. If I was proposing a
change to Lua, its organization or leadership then I would understand
the above statement.
I sincerely hope that Roberto and the PUC/Lua team keep up the
wonderful work that they have been doing and if they do change
anything, I hope that it is in service of the same mission and not a
broader, watered down one. That would be terrible.
> 发自我的 iPhone
> 在 2017年4月20日，下午12:08，Andrew Starks <email@example.com> 写道：
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:58 Dibyendu Majumdar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> Hi Andrew,
>> On 18 April 2017 at 17:53, Andrew Starks <email@example.com> wrote:
>> > Has something like the idea of a Lua Foundation ever come up?
>> I think maybe Lua's success / or unique selling point is that it has
>> no foundation, that it is not managed in a big way, and that it lacks
>> a huge set of standard libraries? Because of this someone like me can
>> take it and modify it, and use as I wish. Something like what I am
>> doing with Lua would be out of the question with other 'bigger' and
>> more ambitious languages.
> If the authors of Lua viewed it as a better Python, then they would have
> also seen fit to create or delegate the accoutrements that would be required
> to effectively replace those alternatives. They didn't and so none got made
> and no governance was offered. As a result, it would be ignored by the
> majority of people that currently use it.
> To accommodate a potential market that could easily be served by Lua as the
> kernel of an ecosystem, it requires a) someone to be bold enough to code
> whatever software might be required to put Lua in that spot, govern
> participation and evolve all of it as the market changes or b) a group of
> people to decide on a mission and a set of basic principles, prioritize a
> short list of required accomplishments and then divide the work.
> I think that would be a good thing for the world of software development
> because I believe that Lua elegantly solves a lot of thorny problems,
> especially in areas of concurrency. In my amateur opinion, Lua adds a great
> deal to computer science. I wish that more people were exposed to it and
> that when they are exposed, that they wi chose it for their work.
> I'd like for that experience to be better for more people because I'm a bit
> of a fan. :)
612 840 2939