Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

[Oliver <oschmidt-mailinglists@...>]

On 02.02.20 01:05, Sean Conner wrote:
> It was thus said that the Great Oliver once stated:
>> On 01.02.20 23:14, Sean Conner wrote:
>>> It was thus said that the Great Andrew Starks once stated:
>>>> The benefit of a standard library, independent/separated from Lua and it’s
>>>> development, is clear to me. It’s an idea that has been had before, but
>>>> why is it so hard to make it happen?
>>>   Someone has to do the work (I'm trying, and doing it publically on this
>> Anyway: someone has to take the reins and to create something that makes it
>   Yes, but it's becomming apparent that even if *someone* were to take the
> reigns, there is little agreement on where to lead the horses.

yes I agree, so let me broaden my statement: IMHO the current problem is not to
agree on which library might be the standard library and how it would look like,
the current main problem is to build up some agreed on infrastructure that leads
the Lua community to "the next level" of collaboration.


>> possible to develop the community, i.e. the problem is not to develop code, the
>> problem is to develop some infrastructure that leads the Lua community to "the
>> next level".
>
>   Okay, what "infrastructure" is missing or lacking?

What's IMHO missing is a central appropriate place where Lua community
collaboration leads together. This place should be:
- agreed on by the community (this is most important)
- convenient and easy to use
- giving orientation about packages, quality, howto etc., e.g. it should be
possible to find packages by: platform, topic, quality rating etc.
- transparent how to contribute
- transparent discussions and decisions that are backed by the community

What we currently have is:

1) the Lua mailing list: it's great for day to day reading and discussion but it
gives no structure for newcomers and is not easy to research, interesting topics
are deeply burried within discussions somewhere in the past

2) the Lua wiki: this gives structure and overview which is great, but
discussions and some kind of quality control are missing. For larger scale and
to build up a trustfully knowledge base it's anonymity could also be a problem.

3) Luarocks: as I wrote: in my opinion this is the best thing we currently have:
it also has a rating system but this seems only half implemented: one can give
stars but these are not visible in search results. Discussions and quality
control are also missing, e.g. it is not possible to detect for what platform
packages are available etc. There are also major problems that are unsolved,
AFAIK, see for example:
http://lua.2524044.n2.nabble.com/Non-uniqueness-of-module-names-tp7686140.html

4) individual repositories: if they are on github (or gitlab) somewhere there we
have nearly everything:  discussions (issues and pull requests)  and rating
system (giving stars) and one can see in the history if the project is still
active and one can see if someone forked the project and can examine if this
fork is still active etc. But this is only at project level and not
comprehensive for different projects that are trying to solve similar problems.

The current infrastructure has nearly everything somewhere and somehow but not
in a convenient, central and reliable way. If the community could build up
something as I wrote above, than this would make the Lua ecosystem more
attractive IMHO.

However I also doubt that the above will happen. This would need a lot of work
from several skilled persons. Perhaps the current Lua community is too small to
achieve this. So this thing is some kind of a "chicken and egg" problem.

Best regards,
Oliver