Re: was: Some info about Python: Back to batteries

[Dennis Fischer <darkwiiplayer@...>]

I may be a bit biased, as I am in the process of writing my own
framework for this, but I consider Lua very viable for everything
web-related.

I've played around with OpenResty+Tarantool+Fengari quite a bit and
there's something about it that just feels right. The only thing that
still annoys me about it is that Lua doesn't natively run in the
browser, but that's very likely to be a non-issue thanks to web assembly
sooner rather than later. Now that LLVM supports WASM as a backend, the
hordes of rust fanboys will only accelerate that process.

The only real problem I see is completely unrelated to any of the
implicated technologies; it's the staff question. Developers learn
python because companies use python. Companies use python because
developers know python.

On 19/01/2020 18:43, Pierre Chapuis wrote:
>> Here it is. We're asked "why should we enable Lua as a general purpose
>> language?" Pierre used Lua's natural speed to make it a better CGI
>> language than PP&R. Imagine how many more of us would do this if Lua
>> had tested and curated packages for DOM, XML, and the like, so that you
>> never have to spend time evaluating competing softwares, and whatever
>> software you write is likely to have its dependencies available
>> anywhere the Lua Standard Library exists.
>>
>> The existence of Python doesn't make Lua useless as a general purpose
>> language.
> Sadly, I have to admit something though: today if I have to choose a
> backend stack for a serious Web project it will probably be Python-based,
> and I use Ruby on Rails at my current job.
>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature