Lua Foundation?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
42 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Lua Foundation?

Andrew Starks-2
Has something like the idea of a Lua Foundation ever come up?

The reason that I ask is because there seem to be many opportunities to explore, all of which require some kind of momentum to be formed or strict adherence to Lua's specific mission. As a result, many efforts feels like hearding cats or sounding like an unwanted extension to Lua itself. 

I believe that it might be good if some blessed governing forum exist for certain things to be decided, independently from the authors of Lua. I don't wish to speak for the authors, but I understand that they do not want the responsibility of managing a desktop eco-system for Lua, be an advocate to Linux distributors, bless a set of standard libraries, etc.

Since many people might choose to benefit from the results of some of these activities, it seems to me that if there is a desire to see Lua expand into more common use, while also letting Lua be Lua for those that like things more as they are, that this path would be a decent option to explore. 

-Andrew
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Marc Balmer
Am 18.04.17 um 18:53 schrieb Andrew Starks:

> Has something like the idea of a Lua Foundation ever come up?
>
> The reason that I ask is because there seem to be many opportunities
> to explore, all of which require some kind of momentum to be formed or
> strict adherence to Lua's specific mission. As a result, many efforts
> feels like hearding cats or sounding like an unwanted extension to Lua
> itself.
>
> I believe that it might be good if some blessed governing forum exist
> for certain things to be decided,
What have you in mind that would like to decide?  Why need a governing
forum?
> independently from the authors of Lua. I don't wish to speak for the
> authors, but I understand that they do not want the responsibility of
> managing a desktop eco-system for Lua, be an advocate to Linux
> distributors, bless a set of standard libraries, etc.
Who wants a desktop eco-system for Lua?  I don't, for example. Oh, and
there is more to the world than Linux.
> Since many people might choose to benefit from the results of some of
> these activities, it seems to me that if there is a desire to see Lua
> expand into more common use, while also letting Lua be Lua for those
> that like things more as they are, that this path would be a decent
> option to explore.
>
> -Andrew
I see not much benefit, tbh, i your proposal.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Andrew Starks-2
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Marc Balmer <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Am 18.04.17 um 18:53 schrieb Andrew Starks:
>
>> Has something like the idea of a Lua Foundation ever come up?
>>
>> The reason that I ask is because there seem to be many opportunities to
>> explore, all of which require some kind of momentum to be formed or strict
>> adherence to Lua's specific mission. As a result, many efforts feels like
>> hearding cats or sounding like an unwanted extension to Lua itself.
>>
>> I believe that it might be good if some blessed governing forum exist for
>> certain things to be decided,
>
> What have you in mind that would like to decide?  Why need a governing
> forum?

I'm one of those that would like Lua to remain as it is: a simple
language designed for embedding and extending. I would also like to
see more rapid adoption for new/independent projects, but this would
require cooperation and organization in order for useful limitations
to be established and enforced.

I don't believe that these two use cases are incompatible. In order
for them to coexist, they need to be at different organizational
layers: some kind of foundation uses whatever the authors of Lua
publish as the language that is the basis for an ecosystem, which
includes everything needed to build software systems and applications
with Lua and a host of curated libraries in the middle.

My understanding is that the authors of Lua probably wouldn't mind if
Lua was adopted for more of the roles that JavaScript and Python get
used for. I also understand that they do not want to manage and more
importantly, the do not want to organize that effort. They don't even
want to bless it.

The "standard library" often comes up in various threads. Progress as
a general purpose language means having an ecosystem and that means
picking some basic libraries, enforcing one way to version things, one
package system, etc. Without some way to enforce limitations new users
in this segment are left befuddled with too many plausible options
that have very little commonality and they have little sense of what
is current and what is abandonware. Apart from LuaRocks, it's
difficult to know which horse to back.

LuaRocks is an extremely successful project, but a project does not
enforce much of anything, including quality standards. There have been
other excellent efforts, but they haven't included a political
structure, either.

>>
>> independently from the authors of Lua. I don't wish to speak for the
>> authors, but I understand that they do not want the responsibility of
>> managing a desktop eco-system for Lua, be an advocate to Linux distributors,
>> bless a set of standard libraries, etc.
>
> Who wants a desktop eco-system for Lua?  I don't, for example. Oh, and there

I believe that Lua *would* be very successful as a desktop language.
For those coming from JavaScript, it is simple to learn and it has
many advantages, especially in projects that have IoT applications or
that have heavy C library integration. However, if I am looking to
take advantage of the momentum in the Lua community, I quickly find
that the idea of "community" is quite fragmented and that there is
little/no curation of libraries, whose quality is there for is uneven
and utility and productivity is more difficult to discover than other
alternatives.

> is more to the world than Linux.


Are you assuming that I'm unaware of Mac OS, Windows, the Amiga and
others? I'm not. I was using an example that is most pervasive in the
world of Linux, where distributions are a thing. Getting Lua 5.3
included in distributions is something that can help Lua's adaptation
for some number of users. Promoting the adoption of patches is
something else that could be done.


>>
>> Since many people might choose to benefit from the results of some of
>> these activities, it seems to me that if there is a desire to see Lua expand
>> into more common use, while also letting Lua be Lua for those that like
>> things more as they are, that this path would be a decent option to explore.
>>
>> -Andrew
>
> I see not much benefit, tbh, i your proposal.

In an important way, what I am suggesting would benefit you. Lua is
excellent as it is and I would hate to see the project moved in this
direction. However, I think it would be a testament to its
architectural design if it could be used as the root for a separate,
independently governed ecosystem.

Most obstacles to creating change (here change is outside, not inside
Lua) are not technical --- they are political, which is to say they
are people problems. Today, we occasionally herd cats because most
people on this list don't care; they are on this list because they use
Lua precisely because it is how it is. Those that do see a benefit to
an ecosystem, and would like to see a more powerful desktop
experience, haven't yet decided to form the kind of organizing body
that could actually make it a reality.

My .02 cents. Consider this an observation with a proposed outline of
a solution.

--
Andrew Starks

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Dibyendu Majumdar
In reply to this post by Andrew Starks-2
On 18 April 2017 at 17:53, Andrew Starks <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Has something like the idea of a Lua Foundation ever come up?
>
> The reason that I ask is because there seem to be many opportunities to
> explore, all of which require some kind of momentum to be formed or strict
> adherence to Lua's specific mission. As a result, many efforts feels like
> hearding cats or sounding like an unwanted extension to Lua itself.
>
> I believe that it might be good if some blessed governing forum exist for
> certain things to be decided, independently from the authors of Lua. I don't
> wish to speak for the authors, but I understand that they do not want the
> responsibility of managing a desktop eco-system for Lua, be an advocate to
> Linux distributors, bless a set of standard libraries, etc.
>
> Since many people might choose to benefit from the results of some of these
> activities, it seems to me that if there is a desire to see Lua expand into
> more common use, while also letting Lua be Lua for those that like things
> more as they are, that this path would be a decent option to explore.
>
> -Andrew

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Dibyendu Majumdar
In reply to this post by Andrew Starks-2
Hi Andrew,

On 18 April 2017 at 17:53, Andrew Starks <[hidden email]> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Dirk Laurie-2
In reply to this post by Andrew Starks-2
2017-04-20 18:37 GMT+02:00 Andrew Starks <[hidden email]>:

> My understanding is that the authors of Lua probably wouldn't mind if
> Lua was adopted for more of the roles that JavaScript and Python get
> used for. I also understand that they do not want to manage and more
> importantly, the do not want to organize that effort. They don't even
> want to bless it.
>
> The "standard library" often comes up in various threads. Progress as
> a general purpose language means having an ecosystem and that means
> picking some basic libraries, enforcing one way to version things, one
> package system, etc. Without some way to enforce limitations new users
> in this segment are left befuddled with too many plausible options
> that have very little commonality and they have little sense of what
> is current and what is abandonware. Apart from LuaRocks, it's
> difficult to know which horse to back.
>
> LuaRocks is an extremely successful project, but a project does not
> enforce much of anything, including quality standards. There have been
> other excellent efforts, but they haven't included a political
> structure, either.

The Internet is a democratic anarchy. If some hardnosed individual starts
up a website of "Lua modules that I use", with good documentation and
fail-free builds over the platforms that Lua itself supports, people will
vote with their feet.

The trouble with efforts along these lines in the past (not wishing to
offend, I won't name them) is that they have been too permissive.
Another JSON/YAML/XML parser? Welcome on board, my boy,
there is always room for one more. Not quite a drop-in replacement
for the others? Never mind, heh-heh, they can read, can't they?

Speaking as someone who recently needed modules for curl and
json, I can say that it was a PITA to choose even between the ones
on LuaRocks, let alone the private repositories kindly offered by the
very helpful people who replied to my posts (and those replies are
what I treasure about Lua-L, don't misunderstand me).

I agree with Andrew — I would dearly love a selection with just one
trustworthy instance of each, like Python provides.

I don't think behemoth integrated multi-modules with substantial
intradependence (again, I'm not naming them) are the answer.
We need good independent modules of managable size, tested
and vouched for by someone with gravitas.

Don't try to get consensus on Lua-L. Or even a vocal minority in favour.
Just get on, do it (properly), offer it, and if it is good enough, it will
become the de facto standard.

After all, the Lua team did not ask the world whether it wanted Lua.
They designed it to please themselves and made it available.

-- Dirk

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
> If some hardnosed individual starts up a website of "Lua modules
> that I use", with good documentation and fail-free builds over the
> platforms that Lua itself supports, people will vote with their feet.

Good documentation is very hard work.

My personal experiment of providing a precompiled Lua application for
Mac OS X containing most of my modules received no feedback. I'm not
complaining, but I can only assume that there is no interest:
        http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2013-07/msg00499.html

Even here the key is fail-free builds. I'm still not sure how to provide
binaries that run in different versions of Mac OS X. Is it still by
using MACOSX_DEPLOYMENT_TARGET ? If so, with what value?

Managing binary distributions is a bottomless pit...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Dirk Laurie-2
2017-04-20 20:35 GMT+02:00 Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <[hidden email]>:

> My personal experiment of providing a precompiled Lua application for
> Mac OS X containing most of my modules received no feedback.

Maybe if you provided it for Linux, there would have been at least
one response :-)

My personal opinion is that your complex and mathx, and Roberto's
lpeg, should be distributed with Lua. Not built-in, just documented to
the standard of the Lua manual, built by the Makefile and installed
to a directory in the default package.path and package.cpath. That
would set the standard whereby other modules are to be measured.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Andrew Starks-2
In reply to this post by Dibyendu Majumdar

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:58 Dibyendu Majumdar <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Andrew,

On 18 April 2017 at 17:53, Andrew Starks <[hidden email]> 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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Marc Balmer
In reply to this post by Dirk Laurie-2
Am 20.04.17 um 21:01 schrieb Dirk Laurie:

> 2017-04-20 20:35 GMT+02:00 Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <[hidden email]>:
>
>> My personal experiment of providing a precompiled Lua application for
>> Mac OS X containing most of my modules received no feedback.
> Maybe if you provided it for Linux, there would have been at least
> one response :-)
>
> My personal opinion is that your complex and mathx, and Roberto's
> lpeg, should be distributed with Lua. Not built-in, just documented to
> the standard of the Lua manual, built by the Makefile and installed
> to a directory in the default package.path and package.cpath. That
> would set the standard whereby other modules are to be measured.
>
No.  It should not.  Not everyone needs it.  Lua's biggest asset is that
it comes with almost no assets.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Andrew Starks-2
In reply to this post by Dirk Laurie-2

On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 13:13 Dirk Laurie <[hidden email]> wrote:
2017-04-20 18:37 GMT+02:00 Andrew Starks <[hidden email]>:

> My understanding is that the authors of Lua probably wouldn't mind if
> Lua was adopted for more of the roles that JavaScript and Python get
> used for. I also understand that they do not want to manage and more
> importantly, the do not want to organize that effort. They don't even
> want to bless it.
>
> The "standard library" often comes up in various threads. Progress as
> a general purpose language means having an ecosystem and that means
> picking some basic libraries, enforcing one way to version things, one
> package system, etc. Without some way to enforce limitations new users
> in this segment are left befuddled with too many plausible options
> that have very little commonality and they have little sense of what
> is current and what is abandonware. Apart from LuaRocks, it's
> difficult to know which horse to back.
>
> LuaRocks is an extremely successful project, but a project does not
> enforce much of anything, including quality standards. There have been
> other excellent efforts, but they haven't included a political
> structure, either.

The Internet is a democratic anarchy. If some hardnosed individual starts
up a website of "Lua modules that I use", with good documentation and
fail-free builds over the platforms that Lua itself supports, people will
vote with their feet.

The trouble with efforts along these lines in the past (not wishing to
offend, I won't name them) is that they have been too permissive.
Another JSON/YAML/XML parser? Welcome on board, my boy,
there is always room for one more. Not quite a drop-in replacement
for the others? Never mind, heh-heh, they can read, can't they?

Speaking as someone who recently needed modules for curl and
json, I can say that it was a PITA to choose even between the ones
on LuaRocks, let alone the private repositories kindly offered by the
very helpful people who replied to my posts (and those replies are
what I treasure about Lua-L, don't misunderstand me).

I agree with Andrew — I would dearly love a selection with just one
trustworthy instance of each, like Python provides.

I don't think behemoth integrated multi-modules with substantial
intradependence (again, I'm not naming them) are the answer.
We need good independent modules of managable size, tested
and vouched for by someone with gravitas.

Don't try to get consensus on Lua-L. Or even a vocal minority in favour.
Just get on, do it (properly), offer it, and if it is good enough, it will
become the de facto standard.

After all, the Lua team did not ask the world whether it wanted Lua.
They designed it to please themselves and made it available.


Yes. I was internally mindful of not just posting a lot of arm waving. I'm puzzling it out, but I think that a foundation with a simple mission and polite governance might be the best vehicle towards getting it done. I'm not the doer guy and I'm not qualified to make informed opinions about important technical considerations (or even what those should be).

But I can push and I can organize and I can try to get it started. I'd like to get a sense for the appetite, especially because it will require time in meetings and real work.

-Andrew


-- Dirk

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Andrew Starks-2
In reply to this post by Dirk Laurie-2
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 14:02 Dirk Laurie <[hidden email]> wrote:
2017-04-20 20:35 GMT+02:00 Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <[hidden email]>:

> My personal experiment of providing a precompiled Lua application for
> Mac OS X containing most of my modules received no feedback.

Maybe if you provided it for Linux, there would have been at least
one response :-)

My personal opinion is that your complex and mathx, and Roberto's
lpeg, should be distributed with Lua. Not built-in, just documented to
the standard of the Lua manual, built by the Makefile and installed
to a directory in the default package.path and package.cpath. That
would set the standard whereby other modules are to be measured.

++1


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Jay Carlson
In reply to this post by Andrew Starks-2
[Primarily for PUC-Rio people.]

On Apr 18, 2017 12:53 PM, "Andrew Starks" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Has something like the idea of a Lua Foundation ever come up?

Is the Lua bareword or the Lua logo covered by trademark anywhere?

I could poke around a little to find what it would take in the US.

Jay
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Marc Balmer

Why would you want to trademark Lua???


Am 20.04.17 um 21:31 schrieb Jay Carlson:
[Primarily for PUC-Rio people.]

On Apr 18, 2017 12:53 PM, "Andrew Starks" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Has something like the idea of a Lua Foundation ever come up?

Is the Lua bareword or the Lua logo covered by trademark anywhere?

I could poke around a little to find what it would take in the US.

Jay

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Roberto Ierusalimschy
In reply to this post by Jay Carlson
> Is the Lua bareword or the Lua logo covered by trademark anywhere?

"Lua" is registered by PUC-Rio.

-- Roberto

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Jay Carlson
This might be a problem for third-parties who wanted to stand up something as evocative as "the Lua Foundation" without PUC-Rio involved. In some jurisdictions there's a duty for trademark holders to stop infringing uses (or else they lose the mark). So barring any agreement with PUC-Rio's lawyers, those lawyers may be obligated to sue a Lua Foundation, especially if were part of the name of a legal entity.

It might be helpful to post a trademark notice on the front page of lua.org, if not the footers for the site.

I am not a lawyer. Consult local legal advice. If you want US help, post; a bunch of us may have contacts.

On Apr 20, 2017 4:12 PM, "Roberto Ierusalimschy" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Is the Lua bareword or the Lua logo covered by trademark anywhere?

"Lua" is registered by PUC-Rio.

-- Roberto

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Dirk Laurie-2
In reply to this post by Marc Balmer
2017-04-20 21:21 GMT+02:00 Marc Balmer <[hidden email]>:

> Am 20.04.17 um 21:01 schrieb Dirk Laurie:
>
>
>> 2017-04-20 20:35 GMT+02:00 Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
>> <[hidden email]>:
>>
>>> My personal experiment of providing a precompiled Lua application for
>>> Mac OS X containing most of my modules received no feedback.
>>
>> Maybe if you provided it for Linux, there would have been at least
>> one response :-)
>>
>> My personal opinion is that your complex and mathx, and Roberto's
>> lpeg, should be distributed with Lua. Not built-in, just documented to
>> the standard of the Lua manual, built by the Makefile and installed
>> to a directory in the default package.path and package.cpath. That
>> would set the standard whereby other modules are to be measured.
>>
> No.  It should not.  Not everyone needs it.

The point is not whether people need it (though these modules are nice
to have around), but to serve as a model for the community.

> Lua's biggest asset is that it comes with almost no assets.

That is a fundamentalist point of view. Such views cannot be argued
with. They are obviously correct. Basta.

Here is another equally fundamentalist view. "Lua's biggest drawback
is that it comes with almost no assets."

hz
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

hz
In reply to this post by Andrew Starks-2
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. 

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.

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.

发自我的 iPhone

在 2017年4月20日,下午12:08,Andrew Starks <[hidden email]> 写道:


On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 12:58 Dibyendu Majumdar <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Andrew,

On 18 April 2017 at 17:53, Andrew Starks <[hidden email]> 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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

Daurnimator
In reply to this post by Andrew Starks-2
 On 19 April 2017 at 02:53, Andrew Starks <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Has something like the idea of a Lua Foundation ever come up?
>
> The reason that I ask is because there seem to be many opportunities to
> explore, all of which require some kind of momentum to be formed or strict
> adherence to Lua's specific mission. As a result, many efforts feels like
> hearding cats or sounding like an unwanted extension to Lua itself.

Such as?

I'm curious what you think can be solved by a "Foundation" that can't
be solved by us, the community.

The main purpose for such a foundation might be as a legal entity and
touch point for large organisations that don't know how to deal with
individuals.
It might be capable of
  - applying for grants
  - holding bank accounts for community funds
  - being named as party to insurance (e.g. for conferences)
  - being blessed by governments
At the moment these are generally not done at all, by private parties,
or sometimes via PUC-Rio and/or LabLua.
I wouldn't be opposed to such an organisation, but I'm not entirely
sure what problems you're solving for.
I also have questions about where such a foundation should be
founded/based to solve the legal issues it's designed to solve.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Lua Foundation?

steve donovan
In reply to this post by Andrew Starks-2
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 6:37 PM, Andrew Starks <[hidden email]> wrote:
> layers: some kind of foundation uses whatever the authors of Lua
> publish as the language that is the basis for an ecosystem, which
> includes everything needed to build software systems and applications
> with Lua and a host of curated libraries in the middle.

It would be nice, but does it need organization? As Dirk says, any
person with strong opinions and some reputation can post a set of
recommendations. No blessing required! (It's not a bad idea actually,
but who is going to bell the cat?)

Part of the problem is the concept of 'nice'.  We have had some very
heated discussions on lua-l, but *no-one* criticizes another's work.
That's just not done, and that's cool. We value niceness.
With a plethora of solutions, a kind of natural selection happens, but
the painful process of discovery (as Dirk has gone through) is not
sufficiently public. We need to learn from others' experience more.
Look, *every* software ecosystem has this problem - there are nearly
9,000 'crates' for Rust, and finding your particular needle in that
haystack isn't easy (even though actually using crates is a pleasure).
So the 'discoverability' word comes up often. It works like this: you
hang around with the people from a community, listen to their chatter,
and find what's the canonical way of doing things. This is not
particularly efficient, although very social.

As for quality - oy, where to start? Documentation is an issue dear to
me, but even if the standard toolkit provides easy doc solutions (as
it is with Go or Rust) where you just have to throw some comments
before your functions, then people will not take the hint. But as lhf
says, documentation is hard, it isn't just about the tools.  Most
module authors would far rather write code than documentation -
open-source software is about maximizing fun, not work. (If something
is fun, it is not work)

We actually had a sweet spot with Lua for Windows, but it had a big
problem: it was hand-curated, not build-from-scratch. Peter Drahos'
LuaDist tackled that problem in an ambitious way, and provides
'Batteries'.  Which could become the base distribution, with LuaRocks
for the rest, but (as Andrew and Ryan) know, it's a lot of work.

So, the solution is not more structure, nor blessings from high - it
comes from the community, which is to say, the efforts of those who
think it is worthwhile.

steve d.

123