[mildly OT] Some info about Python

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
121 messages Options
1234567
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Αγαθοκλής
On Thu, Jan 30, at 11:30 Coda Highland wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 10:31 AM Roberto Ierusalimschy <
> [hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > > [...]
> > > >>
> > > >> The dogs bark, the caravan marches on.
> > >
> > > >Very nice. But I didn't get the C++ statement being parenthesized.
> > >
> > > Because that is a joke. Of course nobody ever really thought that about
> > C++.
> >
> > Quite right. Unlike other languages mentioned in this discussion,
> > the ones I put in my list were all actually heralded as the one to
> > rule them all, either from the start (PL/I and Ada) or from pundits.
> >
> > Still today, there are several Java programmers who are mostly unaware
> > about the mere existence of other languages, and I personally know
> > several people that a few years ago swore that the real world was
> > confined to JavaScript.
> >
> > C++, despite its sucess, never was in this position, at least that I
> > am aware of. I added it to the list to keep the ten-year intervals.
> >
> > -- Roberto
> >
>
> +1, C++ has had its zealots over the years, but there was never the
> overwhelming hype machine claiming that it would solve everything.

On the contrary i believe, C++ is the ultimate tool to solve everything.
(joking :-), today of course), but seriously is. as it is as rather level
as C also, plus any style you like, and you like to express. If i had some
1000++ years to spend, maybe yeahs!, but time is sort, and C is alos quite
flexibly (if concentrated a bit to an expressional style, that would surely
perfect match. Surely i believe quite in Zig Lang to be honest, but you know
time is sort.

see:
http://www.quora.com/Why-is-C++-so-complicated-and-Java-so-simple?top_ans=71862212

> Adam

Καληνύχτα, αγαθοκλής

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Coda Highland
On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 1:27 PM Αγαθοκλής <[hidden email]> wrote:
On the contrary i believe, C++ is the ultimate tool to solve everything.
(joking :-), today of course), but seriously is. as it is as rather level
as C also, plus any style you like, and you like to express. If i had some
1000++ years to spend, maybe yeahs!, but time is sort, and C is alos quite
flexibly (if concentrated a bit to an expressional style, that would surely
perfect match. Surely i believe quite in Zig Lang to be honest, but you know
time is sort.

see:
http://www.quora.com/Why-is-C++-so-complicated-and-Java-so-simple?top_ans=71862212

> Adam

Καληνύχτα, αγαθοκλής

Yes, C++ IS a powerful multiparadigm language, supported on more platforms than just about anything but C, capable of interfacing with more libraries than any other programming language, safer to use than C, faster than most of the languages that tried to supplant it.

But C++ isn't THAT complicated. If you're an experienced programmer (so you're not wasting time learning fundamentals like "what is a variable" "what is a function" "what is a class"), you can learn everything you need to know about C++ in a few months. You're not going to learn the entire C++ standard library specification cover-to-cover in that span of time, but you don't need to do that any more than you need to learn every class and every method in the standard libraries of Java or Python.

Like PHP and Javascript, C++ is a language that people love to hate, but the only reason it gets that much hate is because it's everywhere (you don't see people complaining about Pascal anymore!) which means there's a lot of opportunities to see its warts. If you come at C++ fresh, with an open mind, and you learn the stuff that actually matters instead of trying to delve into all of the varieties of historical baggage and all of the intricacies of each little thing, you'll find that it really isn't much different of a day-to-day experience than any other language you might use. After all, at the end of the day, C++ programmers are still programmers, and we don't want to deal with in-your-face complexity every time we sit down; the whole point of having tools and libraries is to keep that complexity hidden away so that you don't have to worry about it. (For example: Most people writing C++ code don't need to write new templates very often. It's only really necessary if you're building libraries. Otherwise, you mostly just use the templates that are already there in the same way you'd use generics in a language like Java or C#.)

So yeah, C++ has all of the qualifications it would need to be in the running for the One True Language, but it never really got that kind of zealous hype surrounding it.

/s/ Adam
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Αγαθοκλής
On Thu, Jan 30, at 04:51 Coda Highland wrote:

> But C++ isn't THAT complicated. If you're an experienced programmer (so
> you're not wasting time learning fundamentals like "what is a variable"
> "what is a function" "what is a class"), you can learn everything you need
> to know about C++ in a few months. You're not going to learn the entire C++
> standard library specification cover-to-cover in that span of time, but you
> don't need to do that any more than you need to learn every class and every
> method in the standard libraries of Java or Python.
>
> Like PHP and Javascript, C++ is a language that people love to hate, but
> the only reason it gets that much hate is because it's everywhere (you
> don't see people complaining about Pascal anymore!) which means there's a
> lot of opportunities to see its warts. If you come at C++ fresh, with an
> open mind, and you learn the stuff that actually matters instead of trying
> to delve into all of the varieties of historical baggage and all of the
> intricacies of each little thing, you'll find that it really isn't much
> different of a day-to-day experience than any other language you might use.

With regards to "come to fresh/open mind" thing, i found this invaluable:

https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/cpp-intro/

> After all, at the end of the day, C++ programmers are still programmers,
> and we don't want to deal with in-your-face complexity every time we sit
> down; the whole point of having tools and libraries is to keep that
> complexity hidden away so that you don't have to worry about it.

This same argument holds for Lua case too. I mean that's the whole point of
this discussion, and what Sean is trying to do from what we've seen.

> So yeah, C++ has all of the qualifications it would need to be in the
> running for the One True Language, but it never really got that kind of
> zealous hype surrounding it.

It's not about the hype here, as is about the reality and the reality is this
about C++, especially when we are talking for C++17. The language looks that
is walking happily in this evolution (sanity) path for years and it seems to
do that quite fast and without hesitations to admit its warts (which quite
logically exists at some point in every scratch code). The thing that is really
paradox here, is that almost every language was written in C, yet C is compiled
today by C++ :-).

> /s/ Adam

Regards, ag

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Lorenzo Donati-3
In reply to this post by Roberto Ierusalimschy
On 29/01/2020 17:20, Roberto Ierusalimschy wrote:

>> On a recent thread ("Dead Batteries" ) I argued that Lua lost
>> terrain over Python.
>>
>> I won't bother anyone repeating what I already said, but I stumbled
>> on this article which may explain something:
>>
>> https://www.techrepublic.com/article/python-is-eating-the-world-how-one-developers-side-project-became-the-hottest-programming-language-on-the-planet/
>
>>
>
> 1970: PL/I will be the language to rule them all.
>
> 1980: Ada will be the language to rule them all.
>
> (1990: C++ will be the language to rule them all.)
>
> 2000: Java will be the language to rule them all.
>
> 2010: JavaScript will be the language to rule them all.
>
> 2020: Python will be the language to rule them all.
>
> The dogs bark, the caravan marches on.
>
> -- Roberto
>
>

Probably I didn't made my point clear. My reasoning is spread among
several posts.

I didn't try to say:

"Python is hype => Python is a very good language => Python is going to
rule them all => Lua is not good."

I pointed out that some years ago Python knowledge was on par with
Lua's, whereas Lua is not even on the radar now.

(BTW, Hype /is/ a relevant market force, big companies have gone broke
for lack of good marketing at the right time).

And this is something Lua community and Lua team should be aware of, IMO.

This is not about "ruling them all" (this is fanboy reasoning, which I
wouldn't care less). I wouldn't want Lua to "rule them all". What I
would like is to find a Lua library for most tasks I need to perform
that works out of the box, without hassles (as Lua, the language, does).
I.e. what Java did ~15 years ago (when I was a professional programmer)
and what seems Python is doing now.

This is about becoming irrelevant in the general purpose languages
landscape. This could mean: less people interested, hence less resources
(libraries/programs/expertise) available (especially on the
open-source/free category).

IIRC (please correct me if I'm wrong) you once stated that Lua team
wanted Lua to become more widespread also as a GP PL (in the embedding
world it seems it still has an edge, for now).

That SO survey show only relative figures, and I'm not into PL
statistics, so I can't cite other sources (maybe you can?), but judging
by those results, it appears Lua has lost a lot of terrain.

BTW, of the languages you cite (besides Python), C++, Java and
Javascript all still appear on the SO survey, and in the top 10 ranks.
Lua doesn't even hit the ~1% mark of WebAssembly, sadly.

Cheers!

-- Lorenzo

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Andrew Starks-2


> On Feb 1, 2020, at 06:05, Lorenzo Donati <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I pointed out that some years ago Python knowledge was on par with Lua's, whereas Lua is not even on the radar now.
>
> (BTW, Hype /is/ a relevant market force, big companies have gone broke for lack of good marketing at the right time).
>
> And this is something Lua community and Lua team should be aware of, IMO.

In the short term, hype comes and goes, and which language gets thrown up the charts has a lot to do with what was popular before it and what people are rebelling against.

I share the same desire to see more people to Lua and agree that an organized library of tested code would be helpful.

IMHO, Lua is the cleanest, simplest scripting language around.  Why do you think it is the case that after... 30+ years of Lua and massively successful projects depending on its very unique power, it ranks so low in the popularity list? Does the list properly represent people that use it in commercial environments? Does it capture people that are using Lua in roblox or in other games? (WoW, Factorio, BeamNG Drive, ...) Does it capture embedded devices that quietly use Lua but only say so buried in their open source statement?

That is: is Lua not popular and does it need saving?

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?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Sean Conner
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
list, but I'm getting little feedback).  Then people have to use it, which
is probably harder than writing it in the first place.

  -spc


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Dibyendu Majumdar
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 22:14, Sean Conner <[hidden email]> 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
> list, but I'm getting little feedback).  Then people have to use it, which
> is probably harder than writing it in the first place.
>

Hi,
I am sorry to say this but I think it is a futile exercise because the
greatest challenge for you will be to convince others that your
definition of a standard library is better than the libraries they
already use. Added to this there are various risks:

a) How can folks be sure the library will be maintained and supported?
b) If Lua team decide to issue a competing incompatible library then
it would negate all your efforts.

I would suggest instead to make your existing libraries work on
Windows and Mac OSX; I would be very happy to include them in Suravi.

Regards
Dibyendu

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Oliver Schmidt
In reply to this post by Sean Conner
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

IMHO the essential key is not the missing "The Standard Library", that everyone
agrees on, it is more the infrastructure around this, i.e. the infrastructure
that would make it easy to collaborate  and to build a feeling of a
collaborating community and to build some sort of agreed usefull standard
libraries that are considered useful by experienced Lua users. And if this would
lead to  more than one flavour of standard library, even with overlapping scope,
this is not the problem. The problem is more that there is currently  relatively
little kind of community collaboration on working on the goal to built up a Lua
code repository useful for newcomers and common use cases. Everyone cooks his
own soup that perfectly fits his use case. This is perfectly OK IMHO, this is
not a "bad thing", but everyone who wants Lua to have more community impact sees
that there is something missing in the current way.

What we have today:
1.) lua mailing list
2.) lua community wiki
3.) luarocks

Luarocks despite all of its drawbacks is the best thing we currently have: one
central registry for lua projects. There is even the possibility to structure
the projects using tags. However not all important projects are listed on
Luarocks. I can understand if someone is not happy with Luarocks, since it has
many principle problems and causes a lot of headcache and is not easy to adjust
to specicific needs (at least for me).

IMHO it is *not* important, that a single top authority instance gives blessing
on "The Standard Library", it is more a problem that the infrastructure for the
community to go in any concordant or whatsoever direction is not around in a
conveniant way. What could this be? One possibility could be to extend Luarocks
site's capabilities. This would mean to improve the ranking system (giving
stars) and to make it visible. We would also need not only a star system for
projects but also issue discussion lists per project to make it visible what
drawbacks and what benefits each projects have. With this it could lead to a way
to develop a community agreed standard on how to a project should be structured
and what minimal requirements a project shoud fulfull to become community
endorsed. It would be a lot of work to extend the Luarocks website. Another
possibility could be to use some existing collaboration platform, e.g. github,
and build something collaboration infrastructure with this platform, e.g.
creating a github "Lua Community" organization to manage a list of community
endorsed Lua projects (independant from Luarocks) and to use issues/pull
requests for disscusion and improvements about which project should be endorse
and whatsoever.

Anyway: someone has to take the reins and to create something that makes it
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".

Best regards,
Oliver

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
> creating a github "Lua Community" organization to manage a list of community
> endorsed Lua projects (independant from Luarocks) and to use issues/pull
> requests for disscusion and improvements about which project should be endorse
> and whatsoever.

That is a great suggestion! Please go ahead.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Javier Guerra Giraldez
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 18:43, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > creating a github "Lua Community" organization to manage a list of community
> > endorsed Lua projects (independant from Luarocks) and to use issues/pull
> > requests for disscusion and improvements about which project should be endorse
> > and whatsoever.
>
> That is a great suggestion! Please go ahead.

kinda like those "awesome lua" repos out there?

--
Javier

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Sean Conner
In reply to this post by Dibyendu Majumdar
It was thus said that the Great Dibyendu Majumdar once stated:

> On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 22:14, Sean Conner <[hidden email]> 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
> > list, but I'm getting little feedback).  Then people have to use it, which
> > is probably harder than writing it in the first place.
>
> Hi,
> I am sorry to say this but I think it is a futile exercise because the
> greatest challenge for you will be to convince others that your
> definition of a standard library is better than the libraries they
> already use. Added to this there are various risks:
>
> a) How can folks be sure the library will be maintained and supported?

  How can folks be sure Lua will be maintained and supported?

> b) If Lua team decide to issue a competing incompatible library then
> it would negate all your efforts.

  If the Lua team haven't done so by now, I doubt they will any time soon.

> I would suggest instead to make your existing libraries work on
> Windows and Mac OSX; I would be very happy to include them in Suravi.

  The ones in pure Lua should just work (on Lua 5.1 and higher [1]).  The
modules in C already work on Mac OS-X (and again, on Lua 5.1 and higher).  I
don't have access to a Windows system and so far, have received NO feedback
about the lack of Windows support for my modules, so Windows support isn't
high on my list of things to do [2].

  -spc

[1] I haven't done extensive testing against Lua 5.4 since it's not
        officially released yet, but the smoke tests I've done haven't shown
        there to be any issues.

[2] I also effectively have zero Windows development experience.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
In reply to this post by Javier Guerra Giraldez
> kinda like those "awesome lua" repos out there?

Perhaps. But I'd like to see one with a review of each selected
library and discussion of alternatives and tradeoffs.

I wanted to do this for mathematical libraries. I suggested to the
late Dirk Laurie that we did that together but it never happened.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Sean Conner
In reply to this post by Oliver Schmidt
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.

> 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?

  -spc


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Dibyendu Majumdar
In reply to this post by Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 at 23:43, Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
<[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > creating a github "Lua Community" organization to manage a list of community
> > endorsed Lua projects (independant from Luarocks) and to use issues/pull
> > requests for disscusion and improvements about which project should be endorse
> > and whatsoever.
>
> That is a great suggestion! Please go ahead.
>

Didn't people try this already?
https://github.com/lua-users-foundation/foundation
https://github.com/LewisJEllis/awesome-lua
Lua wiki
Kepler project

Why would any new initiative succeed?

Having said that I think github is a good way to drive a set of libraries.
I would welcome contributors to Suravi - which is my own effort in
this area. Happy to give commit rights to people who are serious about
this and want to help out. But I am skeptical anyone will come
forward....

Regards

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Lorenzo Donati-3
In reply to this post by Andrew Starks-2
On 01/02/2020 15:35, Andrew Starks wrote:

>
>
>> On Feb 1, 2020, at 06:05, Lorenzo Donati
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> I pointed out that some years ago Python knowledge was on par with
>> Lua's, whereas Lua is not even on the radar now.
>>
>> (BTW, Hype /is/ a relevant market force, big companies have gone
>> broke for lack of good marketing at the right time).
>>
>> And this is something Lua community and Lua team should be aware
>> of, IMO.
>
> In the short term, hype comes and goes, and which language gets
> thrown up the charts has a lot to do with what was popular before it
> and what people are rebelling against.
>
> I share the same desire to see more people to Lua and agree that an
> organized library of tested code would be helpful.
>
> IMHO, Lua is the cleanest, simplest scripting language around.  Why
> do you think it is the case that after... 30+ years of Lua and
> massively successful projects depending on its very unique power, it
> ranks so low in the popularity list? Does the list properly represent
> people that use it in commercial environments? Does it capture people
> that are using Lua in roblox or in other games? (WoW, Factorio,
> BeamNG Drive, ...) Does it capture embedded devices that quietly use
> Lua but only say so buried in their open source statement?
>

I agree with what you say, but you seem to be missing my point: all the
cases you cite (IIUC) are cases of embedded Lua, i.e. Lua as a glue
language, pulling the strings of the C/C++ environment that the specific
project has set up. Those are not cases of Lua as a General Purpose
Programming Language.

I stressed from the beginning that I'd like to see Lua used more also as
a GP-PL (and still I had no answer on whether Lua team wants that as
well). As an embedded language I just said to Roberto that I think it
has an edge over other technologies and currently is probably ahead in
usage.


> That is: is Lua not popular and does it need saving?
>
> 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?
>

What I've seen in all these years leads me to believe that the main
reasons are:

1. Lack of consensus on what should constitute the library.

2. Lack of recognized coordination between committed developers.

3. Lack of structural funding for projects.

4. Lack of official blessing from Lua team.

Those factors were interwined and all participated, IMO, in the past
failures.

Something that was NOT a factor was lack of effort. On the contrary,
*there was a huge amount of (uncoordinated) effort*, which was either
wasted (see dead projects) or just ended in the creation of "a"
(standard?) library, not "the" standard library.

In a way, it reminds me the old say "Standards are good, everyone should
have its own!"

But the problem lies not in creating a library or defining an
agreed-upon API (none is perfect and none will ever be), but to convince
people that the library is:

1. stable and functionality-rich; it must solve all the most /common/
problems a GP-PL is supposed to solve /nowadays/ (math, OS interaction,
concurrency, basic web/network programming) and maybe include a FFI for
interacting with the OS in unpredictable ways that don't warrant
specific modules; it must be generally useful to both the newbie and the
professional, without being the substitute of entire applications.

2. its API is easy enough to understand in small fragments (no need of
framework-like features where one needs to learn, for example, how to
use a ton of functions before he can write an error message, parse a
command line, perform a numerical derivative or make a socket connection).

    2a. newbie friendly: modules that solve simple problems should not
depend on modules that require a lot of effort to understand how to be used.

    2b. modular enough so that most part of it can be stripped-off in
environments that don't need them; it should be the Lua answer to other
languages "kitchen sink approach": "you want the kitchen sink? OK, here
you go!" (no hassles, no thinking), but "Lua is better because you can
choose exactly what you want".

    2c. Installation friendly: it must support simple installation,
without complex tools. Ideally one should be able to unzip a package in
a subdirectory where Lua is installed and be ready to go. This will
appeal to users (like me) that use tools from a pendrive/external HD on
different systems. It should not depend on specific tools to be
installed, i.e. LuaRocks. It's ok if it is included in LR (indeed it
should), but it should definitely support other ways of installing. In
particular, if it contains binary modules, they must be available
already compiled (at least for Windows, where the average user could not
be a C/C++ master).

   2d. Easily and "dependably" expandable: it should provide upfront
policies on how a dev/company could contribute a new module, even if
they don't want to contribute with support (e.g. "Hey we developed this
module for our project, we think it's general enough to be included in
the lib; take the code, we give you all copyrights, but no dev time").



2. compatible with all widely used and /future/ version of Lua; here
comes the problem with lack of blessing/coordination: if Lua team don't
even consider to mildly coordinate with the library devs, any change of
Lua API (both Lua and Lua C-API, I mean) could create an enormous impact
on the library maintainers; moreover, if a change is not seen coming,
the time to adapt the library to the change would mean a big latency
between the new release of Lua and the release of the compatible version
of the library.

This is a big scarecrow for both users wanting to adopt the library and
library devs that have to commit to extra effort.


4. is maintained and will be maintained despite availability of single
developers; single dev efforts are doomed to fail; even small teams who
develop the library for "fun" are doomed to fail; people come and go,
and if you provide work for free you are not bound to a project in a
strong way (and rightly so). Real life can make a dev switch priority.
Someone could even lose interest in Lua (perhaps he changed his job and
has no time left to dabble with Lua?). To be a healthy project there
must be some sort of official organization (foundation?) that helps to
manage its "economical" and technical aspects (raises funds, collects
donations, curates marketing aspects, hires devs in time of need when
volunteer work is not enough, manage expenses of websites, organizes
developers' time assigned to modules development, etc., etc.). And it
must have a technical committee that decides on cases like (2d) above or
on whatever would be useful to be added.

   4a. This hypothetical foundation should be driven by community, but
not ruled by community. That is, it must be created so that it must
listen to community, but then the technical decisions are to be taken by
a technical committee (Lua team members could be permanent members, if
they care, or may nominate one representative; other people should be
elected from recognized and authoritative members of the community, for
example). That's the real tricky part: choosing the right people and the
right policies to avoid falling in a dumb "design by committee" hell.


3. is the "go to" solution when no more specific needs arise; the whole
community (Lua team included) should be convinced that whenever one asks
which library to use the answer is "This library", unless there are more
specific/better alternatives. No more: "You can use penlight, or stdlib,
or this other one, but in this other there is that module that could be
useful...". (It's not a "Rule them all" approach. It's like: "Try this
first" if doesn't fit your bill ask again and we'll help you).




Sorry for the long post. That was a quick analysis and possible solution
to this recurring "library" problem. It is my opinion, of course, and it
was laid out off the top of my head given my long experience on Lua-l.
It is not meant to be a "well organized plan" to success, but I think it
highlights some of the problems that need to be overcome.


BTW, to @Sean Conner (to which goes all my admiration for his expertise
and committment, now and in the past years): I really appreciate your
effort in trying to define an API, but (sorry to be blunt) I think you
are making the same mistake others have made in the past.

You started designing to solve the problem "let's create the core of the
library", whereas I think we have a bigger problem: we first need
policies and organization (what Lua and Lua team by design don't offer).

Yes, I know that itch: "OK (*...he says, pulling up his sleeves ...*)
let's crack this nut open!". We as developers love to solve technical
problems, and sometimes we lose the bigger picture.


The "we have no standard library" issue is not a technical problem in
the first place, but a management and (partly) a social one, IMO.



Cheers!


-- Lorenzo








Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Oliver Schmidt
In reply to this post by Sean Conner
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Archie Cobbs
On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 5:08 AM Oliver <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>>> 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:
<snip>

I agree with all of that. I also think the non-composability of third party modules is a major problem as well (see other thread).

However, my gut feeling is there is only one viable solution out of this.

That is to fork the lua code and create a totally new and completely separate project that's NORMAL.

That means:
- It's not restricted to ISO C
- It configures and builds with autoconf
- The build selects optional features automatically based on platform support
- It's hosted on github
- The project accepts PR's
- Incorporate the best of what's out there (e.g., LuaJIT, sockets, etc.) in one place
- Allow new & optional features like multi-threading
- Maintain backward compatibility with Lua and merge Lua's updates&improvements over time
- All the other NORMAL things an open source project normally has

This project would have a different name of course...

I'm not volunteering to set all this up just now, but I'll definitely join the movement if one gets started.

-Archie

--
Archie L. Cobbs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Αγαθοκλής
In reply to this post by Coda Highland
On Thu, Jan 30, at 04:51 Coda Highland wrote:
> Yes, C++ IS a powerful multiparadigm language, supported on more platforms
> than just about anything but C, capable of interfacing with more libraries
> than any other programming language, safer to use than C, faster than most
> of the languages that tried to supplant it.
>
> But C++ isn't THAT complicated.

You know what i get? Its mostly fear.

The fear might originate (perhaps okey?) so..., this might came from, lets say some
kind of an (underlying (not sure about the word), i want to mean: (it is cultivating
something that can not be seen (even from us that participating in this cultivation)))
elitism of the past, which then in turn feeded complication.

Thinking loudly mostly, this boring night, it would be interesting to see a --C++.
I mean, go back to C, but bringing to C some of the C++; you know the absolute that
make sense. Like namespaces and ... the string. Personally i do not give a dime for
automatic destruction of my objects, i know them, and if i don't know them that good,
i should learned them better, but std::string is beautiful! and i envy C++ for this.

Such safe convienences (backup'ed by the compiler) allow concentration to the logic,
and yes it is true that C doesn't offers those conveniences. But at the same time,
and that is where exactly the C shines like a shining crazy diamond, is that you do
not have the slightest need to learn anything other than this tiny C language itself
to be productive.

But it's not this case of anyother than C, that you should go far beyond the language
to have results. Maybe this is also the weak point of Rust, as it seems that is even
more complicated than C++, which supposedly came to replace.

Even Lua has a long path that you should walk first to fully understand the concepts.

I don't know why we humans aiming to overcomplication, when we can freely choose wise
simplification.

That's why, a supposedly --C++ and if C cooperates also a bit, it can work and with
unimaginable (for now) possibilities. The important keywords here i think is the
"willing for cooperation", and for the common benefit and as one body.

Buf for Lua this is damn easy!

The language with the exception of a couple of ambuguities is the simplest of all.
The diversity is your nuclear gun and your advantage, or at least can be transformed
to The advantage.
You are pretty smart and you know to work perfectly as a team.
What you need is to find the glue only. But this is already described!

Anyway, maybe the best is not have the singlest expectation. To be honest Lua already
is in a rather good position (it is a reference in the embedded environments).
And probably this is its fate anyway, so admit it and live with it and have fun, and
have some sweet dreams tonight.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Andrew Starks-2
In reply to this post by Lorenzo Donati-3

> On Feb 2, 2020, at 04:43, Lorenzo Donati <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> The "we have no standard library" issue is not a technical problem in the first place, but a management and (partly) a social one, IMO.

What if an organization, such as the Linux Foundation, would agree to host such an organization? Perhaps they would agree to help With marketing, trade shows, other exposure, provide a governance framework, etc.?

Assuming they would do it with the blessings of PUC/Rio, do you think something like that would help?

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

Re: [mildly OT] Some info about Python

Sean Conner
In reply to this post by Archie Cobbs
It was thus said that the Great Archie Cobbs once stated:

>
> However, my gut feeling is there is only one viable solution out of this.
>
> That is to fork the lua code and create a totally new and completely
> separate project that's NORMAL.
>
> That means:
> - It's not restricted to ISO C
> - It configures and builds with autoconf
> - The build selects optional features automatically based on platform
> support
> - It's hosted on github
> - The project accepts PR's
> - Incorporate the best of what's out there (e.g., LuaJIT, sockets, etc.) in
> one place
> - Allow new & optional features like multi-threading
> - Maintain backward compatibility with Lua and merge Lua's
> updates&improvements over time
> - All the other NORMAL things an open source project normally has
>
> This project would have a different name of course...

  So what is stopping you?

> I'm not volunteering to set all this up just now, but I'll definitely join
> the movement if one gets started.

  Oh, that's what's stopping you.  You aren't dedicated enough to do this.  

  I don't think anyone here is dedicated enough to do this.

  -spc


1234567