Time to split the Lua list?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
36 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Sean Conner
It was thus said that the Great Gé Weijers once stated:

>
> > >There are actually three clusters:
> > >
> > >1. Those who use Lua as it is.
> > >2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be.
> > >3. Those who argue for argument's sake.
> > >
> > >No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.
>  
> Perhaps we should give everyone a word and/or message allowance (5 messages
> and 500 words/day?)
> This would force commenters to weigh their words carefully, or their
> message will bounce...

  Best course of action is to ignore group 3 outright.  Group 2 isn't *that*
bad, but encourage them to at least try to implement their ideas.

  -spc


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Dirk Laurie-2
Op Di. 4 Des. 2018 om 09:55 het Sean Conner <[hidden email]> geskryf:

>
> It was thus said that the Great Gé Weijers once stated:
> >
> > > >There are actually three clusters:
> > > >
> > > >1. Those who use Lua as it is.
> > > >2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be.
> > > >3. Those who argue for argument's sake.
> > > >
> > > >No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.
> >
> > Perhaps we should give everyone a word and/or message allowance (5 messages
> > and 500 words/day?)
> > This would force commenters to weigh their words carefully, or their
> > message will bounce...
>
>   Best course of action is to ignore group 3 outright.  Group 2 isn't *that*
> bad, but encourage them to at least try to implement their ideas.

Anyway, the groups are not all that distinct. I have posted in all
three categories, and I dare you to argue that you have not.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Sean Conner
It was thus said that the Great Dirk Laurie once stated:

> Op Di. 4 Des. 2018 om 09:55 het Sean Conner <[hidden email]> geskryf:
> >
> > It was thus said that the Great Gé Weijers once stated:
> > >
> > > > >There are actually three clusters:
> > > > >
> > > > >1. Those who use Lua as it is.
> > > > >2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be.
> > > > >3. Those who argue for argument's sake.
> > > > >
> > > > >No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.
> > >
> > > Perhaps we should give everyone a word and/or message allowance (5 messages
> > > and 500 words/day?)
> > > This would force commenters to weigh their words carefully, or their
> > > message will bounce...
> >
> >   Best course of action is to ignore group 3 outright.  Group 2 isn't *that*
> > bad, but encourage them to at least try to implement their ideas.
>
> Anyway, the groups are not all that distinct. I have posted in all
> three categories, and I dare you to argue that you have not.

  Sure, I'll admit to that, but I did say "best course of action" with
respect to group 3.

  Okay, how about "ignore messages that fall into category 3."  I still
stand by my stance towards group 2, especially for repeat offenders.

  -spc


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Dibyendu Majumdar
In reply to this post by Sean Conner
I think we should guard against trying to control the conversation to our liking. No one forces you to read or respond to posts you do not like but it is presumptuous to think you know what conversation is worth having. Of course off topic posts should be discouraged as this is a Lua forum.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Peter Hickman-3
In reply to this post by Gé Weijers
So what are we going to do, ban someone for posting a message 501 words long or does the mailing list bounce it? Is this 5 messages per 24 hours (do the banned messages count to this limit) or 1 calendar day (and in which timezone)?

Won't this encourage cryptic yoof like txt messaging rather than easy to read messages that non native speakers will have further difficulty reading

Ill conceived with no thought of the consequences - have you considered a career in politics?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Dirk Laurie-2
In reply to this post by Sean Conner
Op Di. 4 Des. 2018 om 10:53 het Sean Conner <[hidden email]> geskryf:

>   Okay, how about "ignore messages that fall into category 3."  I still
> stand by my stance towards group 2, especially for repeat offenders.

Our present practice is that sooner or later Luiz or Robertio says
that's enough, and if anybody then just continues regardless, list
software surely makes provision for blocking a poster. Moreover, I
have my own (very short) blacklist which is routed to trash by my mail
client.

Basically, my own rule (not followed slavishly) is if I find my
fingers typing TL;DR, I hit the "discard message" button next.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Peter Hickman-3
In reply to this post by Dibyendu Majumdar
On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 09:03, Dibyendu Majumdar <[hidden email]> wrote:
I think we should guard against trying to control the conversation to our liking. No one forces you to read or respond to posts you do not like but it is presumptuous to think you know what conversation is worth having. Of course off topic posts should be discouraged as this is a Lua forum.

If the Lua mailing list is too much to handle perhaps OP could start their own. Someone, who shall not be named, went off and did that and it became much calmer round here as a result.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Dirk Laurie-2
Op Di. 4 Des. 2018 om 11:11 het Peter Hickman
<[hidden email]> geskryf:
>
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 09:03, Dibyendu Majumdar <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I think we should guard against trying to control the conversation to our liking. No one forces you to read or respond to posts you do not like but it is presumptuous to think you know what conversation is worth having. Of course off topic posts should be discouraged as this is a Lua forum.
>
>
> If the Lua mailing list is too much to handle perhaps OP could start their own. Someone, who shall not be named, went off and did that and it became much calmer round here as a result.

And let's face it, not even the most prolix or solipsistic among
current posters can be called obnoxious in comparison to that
posturer.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Phil Leblanc
I should have made more explicit that my initial post was entirely
tongue-in-cheek, not serious. Just venting out a tiny bit of
frustration.

I certainly don't want a lua-l split (of course it wouldn't work), and
not more control over what people post.

So, sorry for the noise (I feel the irony), and back to practicing my
"don't open" reflex and "indulgent attitude", as Dirk put it :-)
On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 4:20 AM Dirk Laurie <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Op Di. 4 Des. 2018 om 11:11 het Peter Hickman
> <[hidden email]> geskryf:
> >
> > On Tue, 4 Dec 2018 at 09:03, Dibyendu Majumdar <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >>
> >> I think we should guard against trying to control the conversation to our liking. No one forces you to read or respond to posts you do not like but it is presumptuous to think you know what conversation is worth having. Of course off topic posts should be discouraged as this is a Lua forum.
> >
> >
> > If the Lua mailing list is too much to handle perhaps OP could start their own. Someone, who shall not be named, went off and did that and it became much calmer round here as a result.
>
> And let's face it, not even the most prolix or solipsistic among
> current posters can be called obnoxious in comparison to that
> posturer.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Lorenzo Donati-3
In reply to this post by Dirk Laurie-2
On 04/12/2018 09:34, Dirk Laurie wrote:

> Op Di. 4 Des. 2018 om 09:55 het Sean Conner <[hidden email]> geskryf:
>>
>> It was thus said that the Great Gé Weijers once stated:
>>>
>>>>> There are actually three clusters:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Those who use Lua as it is.
>>>>> 2. Those who dream about Lua as it might be.
>>>>> 3. Those who argue for argument's sake.
>>>>>
>>>>> No split of clusters #1 and #2 is going to deter cluster #3.
>>>
>>> Perhaps we should give everyone a word and/or message allowance (5 messages
>>> and 500 words/day?)
>>> This would force commenters to weigh their words carefully, or their
>>> message will bounce...
>>
>>   Best course of action is to ignore group 3 outright.  Group 2 isn't *that*
>> bad, but encourage them to at least try to implement their ideas.
>
> Anyway, the groups are not all that distinct. I have posted in all
> three categories, and I dare you to argue that you have not.
>
>
IMO, the problem is not that many (most?, all?) of us had been part of
any of those group /sometimes/ and/or /briefly/.

I dare say that even some posts falling into group #3 may sometimes be
useful food for thought. Even if they generate long-winded threads.

The problem are the ones who consistently, insistently and almost
exclusively fall into group #3 for (almost) every message they post!

These are the kind of persons that (e.g.), when asked whether they want
sugar in their coffee, start a rant about how bad is eating sugar, go on
for half an hour, then get the sugar and talk for /another half an hour/
on how bad coffee tastes without sugar (and maybe criticize you because
you asked for tea instead)! O_O

This makes the list S/N (signal to noise) ratio much worse.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Lorenzo Donati-3
In reply to this post by Dibyendu Majumdar
On 04/12/2018 10:03, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
> I think we should guard against trying to control the conversation to our
> liking. No one forces you to read or respond to posts you do not like but
> it is presumptuous to think you know what conversation is worth having. Of
> course off topic posts should be discouraged as this is a Lua forum.
>
I agree on but with a caveat: even OT threads (if marked so) have been
useful and interesting on this list (e.g., I mildly remember some
"survey" about which was the best beginner programming language which
leveraged on the wide audience of this list).



Jim
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Jim
In reply to this post by Lorenzo Donati-3
things would be easier if some people could stop
their (mailtool's ?) bad habit of sending html encoded
mails to this list (or an additional html version of the text
attached to their mails).
this is unnecessary as mail is simply text based.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Don't split the list, Lua the Lua way: was Time to split the Lua list?

Steve Litt
In reply to this post by Phil Leblanc
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 13:23:34 -0500
Phil Leblanc <[hidden email]> wrote:


> What do you think?

List splitting almost never accomplishes anything good, and often
brings bad things.

I've been gone since 2016 because this list is very prolific and I
didn't have time for it after switching my main language to Python3.

I've come back and noticed something hasn't changed: People keep asking
Lua to become something it isn't. For example, the huge Lua Needs
thread appears to be that somebody needs some sort of scaffolding to do
"composition based OOP" (I don't have the original post).

To me, if there's ever been any language facility supporting
composition, it's the Lua table. And although, at least through Lua
5.3, Lua doesn't have an official, dedicated Object Oriented
Programming syntax. You can accomplish the same things, at least as
easily, using what Lua offers, but it seems like some want Lua to
incorporate riffs from other languages.

I don't.

I've always appreciated the way you can do almost anything with a Lua
table and closures. A developer needn't concern herself with zillions
of complex data types, each having its own methods or performing
differently on shared methods.

I wish people would just let Lua be Lua, and not suggest changes for
the language. If we wanted Rust or Python or C++, we'd be using them.

To me, the only reason to change the language is if the language cannot
perform a task without the change. Years ago, I asked for one change to
Lua: Inclusion of a "continue" statement for loops. When nobody else
found such a construct necessary, I posted a workaround so, within a
loop, I could have a construct that had the role of "give me the next
line and start again at the loop's top." Nobody could find a better way
to perform that role than my workaround, and several people found my
workaround so obscene that a continue statement was added to the
language.

If there's something that Lua can't do in any reasonable way, perhaps a
change in the language is called for. But if a change is proposed to
provide yet another way to do it, why not just use Perl, where "many
ways to do it" is a fundamental part of the language's purpose?

SteveT

Steve Litt
December 2018 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Don't split the list, Lua the Lua way: was Time to split the Lua list?

Philippe Verdy
Well, Lua has "labels" but the "break" statement cannot be used to break several loops (for, repeat, while), even if these loops are labelled, we still cannot simply use "break label_name" (which would not be a goto as it should go just *after* the loop and not just before...
We can use a trick: define a function containing the loops, and returning from the function instead of breaking. But using an extra function does not play well. So we're left using ugly "goto" statements by adding an extra label just after the loop (possibly with a colon to create an empty statement). It should be better/cleaner to label the loop statement itself.
As well the absence of a "switch" statement forces us to use multiple "elseif" clauses causing the same expression to be evaluated multiple times, or to declare a local variable, which should be implicit; but then the local variable persists in scope after the "if...elseif... else... end" block, and if should be desirable to reduce its scope, so we have to use a dummy "do...end" block to enclose the "local" variable declaration and initialization and the "if...end" statement. This does not make the code really cleaner and does not simplify the compilation to optimize these ifs (e.g. using a jump lookup vector) without analysing each expression given in "if..." and all "elseif..." clauses, to find if they test the same value and compare them possibly with "or"/"and" subexpressions. This is much work for the compiler that would be avoided using a simple switch comparing the tested expression with a list of distinct constants (evaluated at compile time)...



Le dim. 9 déc. 2018 à 15:59, Steve Litt <[hidden email]> a écrit :
On Sat, 1 Dec 2018 13:23:34 -0500
Phil Leblanc <[hidden email]> wrote:


> What do you think?

List splitting almost never accomplishes anything good, and often
brings bad things.

I've been gone since 2016 because this list is very prolific and I
didn't have time for it after switching my main language to Python3.

I've come back and noticed something hasn't changed: People keep asking
Lua to become something it isn't. For example, the huge Lua Needs
thread appears to be that somebody needs some sort of scaffolding to do
"composition based OOP" (I don't have the original post).

To me, if there's ever been any language facility supporting
composition, it's the Lua table. And although, at least through Lua
5.3, Lua doesn't have an official, dedicated Object Oriented
Programming syntax. You can accomplish the same things, at least as
easily, using what Lua offers, but it seems like some want Lua to
incorporate riffs from other languages.

I don't.

I've always appreciated the way you can do almost anything with a Lua
table and closures. A developer needn't concern herself with zillions
of complex data types, each having its own methods or performing
differently on shared methods.

I wish people would just let Lua be Lua, and not suggest changes for
the language. If we wanted Rust or Python or C++, we'd be using them.

To me, the only reason to change the language is if the language cannot
perform a task without the change. Years ago, I asked for one change to
Lua: Inclusion of a "continue" statement for loops. When nobody else
found such a construct necessary, I posted a workaround so, within a
loop, I could have a construct that had the role of "give me the next
line and start again at the loop's top." Nobody could find a better way
to perform that role than my workaround, and several people found my
workaround so obscene that a continue statement was added to the
language.

If there's something that Lua can't do in any reasonable way, perhaps a
change in the language is called for. But if a change is proposed to
provide yet another way to do it, why not just use Perl, where "many
ways to do it" is a fundamental part of the language's purpose?

SteveT

Steve Litt
December 2018 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Ką Mykolas
In reply to this post by Lorenzo Donati-3
Agree on some OT threads being quite interesting to read. And
even so, You can just skip it outomagically or by hand if You don't
care about offtopic.

In general, I do not like the idea of splitting mailing list, especially
having in mind that the whole community, tools, libraries, etc. are 
quite sparse in Lua world. And there plenty different social bubbles
and uses, which do not communicate that much among them
selves. So, having at least one central point is a plus, in my
opinion.

Cheers :}

On Sat, Dec 8, 2018 at 11:50 AM Lorenzo Donati <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 04/12/2018 10:03, Dibyendu Majumdar wrote:
> I think we should guard against trying to control the conversation to our
> liking. No one forces you to read or respond to posts you do not like but
> it is presumptuous to think you know what conversation is worth having. Of
> course off topic posts should be discouraged as this is a Lua forum.
>
I agree on but with a caveat: even OT threads (if marked so) have been
useful and interesting on this list (e.g., I mildly remember some
"survey" about which was the best beginner programming language which
leveraged on the wide audience of this list).



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Time to split the Lua list?

Lorenzo Donati-3
On 09/12/2018 17:33, Ką Mykolas wrote:

[...]


> In general, I do not like the idea of splitting mailing list, especially
> having in mind that the whole community, tools, libraries, etc. are
> quite sparse in Lua world. And there plenty different social bubbles
> and uses, which do not communicate that much among them
> selves.
> So, having at least one central point is a plus, in my
> opinion.
>

Yep! The fragmented nature of Lua ecosystem wouldn't benefit from a
split mailing list. I definitely agree on that!


> Cheers :}
>

[...]


12