lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 5:12 AM, Dibyendu Majumdar
<> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
> On 20 April 2017 at 20:08, Andrew Starks <> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:58 Dibyendu Majumdar <>
>> wrote:
>>> On 18 April 2017 at 17:53, Andrew Starks <> 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.  :)
> I think that unlike other languages Lua is unique as it is often
> customised by folks using it. Other languages that have foundations
> are as far as I know, all very centrally managed, with a single
> definition of the language.

Yes! I agree. This is what makes Lua so much more useful than other
alternatives. The authors focused on only the language (including the
CAPI) and their implementation. They chose to leave an ecosystem out
of their concerns. This may be one of the most important distinctions
of Lua and I too would hate to see that change.

> The problem as I see it is that with the concept of a foundation -
> will this mean only some implementation(s) of Lua will be blessed?
> What about LuaJIT or other derivatives?

These are important questions and they are thorny. I have opinions,
but my perspective is limited. It's why I would not want to, on my
own, make those calls. I would rather have the benefit of a broader
range of perspectives, a method for processing them and a way to
refine and debate proposed solutions that results in actual action.

> Secondly - unlike other languages - Lua as a language is solely
> controlled by the Lua team. So a foundation that isn't managed by them
> doesn't make sense I think.

I see this as a strength. Like a good API, this is a layered approach.
PUC/Rio will hopefully continue to develop the language and its
implementation. The foundation would concern itself with the
organizing efforts of the non-embedded world

In this way, the foundation would have no role in designing the
language and the authors of Lua do not need to be concerned with
picking winners and losers and thus implicitly limit how people may
use or even conceive of their work.

> In my view, it is better to put all efforts behind LuaRocks to help
> improve the experience of Lua users.

In my view, LuaRocks is an important (and deservedly celebrated)
component of the solution, now and going forward.

> Regards
> Dibyendu

Andrew Starks