Re: Lua Foundation?

[Andrew Starks <andrew@...>]

On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 1:36 AM, fiosoftware <hz@fiosoftware.com> 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
stop?

>
> 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 <andrew@starksfam.org> 写道：
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:58 Dibyendu Majumdar <mobile@majumdar.org.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> On 18 April 2017 at 17:53, Andrew Starks <andrew@starksfam.org> 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.
>>
>> Regards
>> Dibyendu
>
>
> 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.  :)
>
> -Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Andrew Starks
612 840 2939
andrew@starksfam.org