On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:51:12 -0400, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:49:23 -0700
> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:43:33 -0000 (UTC)
>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>> >>>> So moving from one language hardly anyone uses to another that
>>> >>>> hardly
>>> >anyone
>>> >>>> uses. You can't deny the consistency.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> We use lua rather extensively in multiple products.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> You seem to do nothing but criticize others.
>>> >>
>>> >> I've worked in a number of different areas and I've never come
>>> >> across anyone who mentioned Lua, never mind a company that used
>>> >> it. Whatever you do it must be rather niche.
>>> >
>>> >I use lua to enhance conky - but yes it is a bit niche, I suppose.
>>>
>>> Is conky your talking teddy bear?
>>
>> It's *very* commonly used as a "bolt-on" solution for scripting in a
>> wide variety of applications, particularly videogame engines. I eagerly
>> await your explanation of how that doesn't count since it's outside
>> your own sphere of experience.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_applications_using_Lua
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lua_(programming_language)-scripted_vide
>> o_games
>
> Oh, games. Serious applications then.

Any linux distribution that supports use of rpm packages supports using lua as
the scripting language for package installations and removals.
https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/rpmlua.8.html

Regards, Dave Hodgins

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 12:05:33 -0400, David W. Hodgins <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 11:51:12 -0400, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:49:23 -0700
>> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:43:33 -0000 (UTC)
>>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> >>>> So moving from one language hardly anyone uses to another that
>>>> >>>> hardly
>>>> >anyone
>>>> >>>> uses. You can't deny the consistency.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> We use lua rather extensively in multiple products.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> You seem to do nothing but criticize others.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I've worked in a number of different areas and I've never come
>>>> >> across anyone who mentioned Lua, never mind a company that used
>>>> >> it. Whatever you do it must be rather niche.
>>>> >
>>>> >I use lua to enhance conky - but yes it is a bit niche, I suppose.
>>>>
>>>> Is conky your talking teddy bear?
>>>
>>> It's *very* commonly used as a "bolt-on" solution for scripting in a
>>> wide variety of applications, particularly videogame engines. I eagerly
>>> await your explanation of how that doesn't count since it's outside
>>> your own sphere of experience.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_applications_using_Lua
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lua_(programming_language)-scripted_vide
>>> o_games
>>
>> Oh, games. Serious applications then.
>
> Any linux distribution that supports use of rpm packages supports using lua as
> the scripting language for package installations and removals.
> https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/rpmlua.8.html

https://rpm-software-management.github.io/rpm/manual/lua.html
includes an explanation of why the lua interpreter is embedded into the rpm
program.

Regards, Dave Hodgins

In article <20240416085912.00001a9b@gmail.com>,
John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:51:12 -0000 (UTC)
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> >I eagerly await your explanation of how that doesn't count since
>> >it's outside your own sphere of experience.
>>
>> Oh, games. Serious applications then.
>
>Ah, the "applications that I don't consider important don't count"
>strategy. Magnifique.
>

This guy really does have a knack for stepping in it, doesn't he?

--
Pensacola - the thinking man's drink.

In article <uvm82d$11io2$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
....
>I worked in defense writing software for missiles for a while. Also worked
>on networking code for systems that literally transfered 100s of millions of
>dollars worth of trades a day.

Yes, you did, Donnie. Now be a good boy...

--
Reading any post by Fred Hodgin, you're always faced with the choice of:
lunatic, moron, or troll.

I always try to be generous and give benefit of the doubt, by assuming troll.

On 2024-04-16, David W. Hodgins <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:

> Any linux distribution that supports use of rpm packages supports using lua as
> the scripting language for package installations and removals.
> https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/rpmlua.8.html

Oh, right, FreeBSD's pkg(8) also supports that:
https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=pkg-lua-script

Which brings us back to the very start of this thread: Is Lua a
"scripting" language or a "programming" language?

--
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de

Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> writes:
> On 2024-04-16, David W. Hodgins <dwhodgins@nomail.afraid.org> wrote:
>> Any linux distribution that supports use of rpm packages supports using lua as
>> the scripting language for package installations and removals.
>> https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/rpmlua.8.html
>
> Oh, right, FreeBSD's pkg(8) also supports that:
> https://man.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=pkg-lua-script
>
> Which brings us back to the very start of this thread: Is Lua a
> "scripting" language or a "programming" language?

I thought the conclusion of this thread is that there's no clear
distinction.

It's both.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Medtronic
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

>>>> I've programmed in Perl but I'm no Perl-programmer notwithstanding.
>>>> Some more or less obvious reasons I see...
>>>> Abstraction of diverse Unix utilities' interfaces.
>>>
>>> no other language comes close in conciseness when it comes to
>>> text processing and interacting with the OS (filesystem, pipes,..)
>>
>> .. i could imagine e.g. a library for a language getting there.
>
> Especially a language that is particularly versatile and adaptable to
> defining DSLs.

Ruby is a good example of that. It mixes Lisp (useful for making DSLs)
and the good parts of Perl (regexps, text processing).
But Ruby only filled (partially) the niche of programming web frameworks.
And I say partially because perl-based cpanel is still being used nowadays.

But for system automation tasks in a Posix OS, when you want to
go above the level of a simple shell script and use complex data
structures, Perl is the only language that fills that gap, any other
language is oververbose (lacks conciseness).

And for whatever reason no other language has filled that gap.
Nobody has even attemped to create another language for the task.
So 37 years after its creation, learning Perl it's still useful.

--
Brevity is the best recommendation of speech, whether in a senator or an orator.
Marcus Tullius Cicero

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:42:45 -0000 (UTC), Muttley wrote:

> Having looked at Rust I do wonder what the fuss is about.

Real-world experience
<https://security.googleblog.com/2022/12/memory-safe-languages-in-android-13.html>
from a large code base (Android). Memory errors did decrease
significantly. While total errors did not decrease, the severity of
the remaining ones did.

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 16:42:43 +0100, Chris Elvidge wrote:

> I use lua to enhance conky ...

I know Lua was designed specifically to be embeddable, as an extension
language for apps. But surprisingly, you see Python being used a lot for
that, too.

The most high-profile example has to be Blender. Now *there* is a
scriptability API ...

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:47:47 +0000, Javier wrote:

> But for system automation tasks in a Posix OS, when you want to go above
> the level of a simple shell script and use complex data structures, Perl
> is the only language that fills that gap, any other language is
> oververbose (lacks conciseness).

Still some limitations in its data structures, though. I see Perl 5.38 has
added an “experimental” class feature, but it doesn’t do multiple
inheritance or metaclasses. Also I’m not sure if classes are first-class
objects or not.

On Di 16 Apr 2024 at 14:00, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> On 16/04/2024 12:58, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
>> On 2024-04-16, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>>
>>> Forth is alive and well, albeit not very common. It is used in embedded
>>> systems - it is almost certainly the smallest language and run-time
>>> system where you can have a extendable high-level language, and runs
>>> directly on even very small microcontrollers.
>> It has also been used since circa 1999 as the embedded language of
>> the FreeBSD boot loader, another constrained environment. In the
>> end Forth proved too unpopular, few people touched it, and it is
>> being replaced with Lua now.
>>
>
> People who have used Forth a lot tend to be very enthusiastic about it, but
> it has a long learning curve to get up to speed.
Really? It is a very small language and has almost no syntax.
I thought it was one of the easiest languages toe learn ib comparison to
C++ or Java.

'Andreas
--
ceterum censeo redmondinem esse delendam

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 09:18:13 -0700
John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 16:13:01 -0000 (UTC)
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> I worked in defense writing software for missiles for a while. Also
>> worked on networking code for systems that literally transfered 100s
>> of millions of dollars worth of trades a day.
>
>*golf clap*
>

Whatever that is.

>> But yeah, I'm sure scripting actions on Fortnite and Call of Duty
>> compare. Even the game engines are written in C++.
>
>Frequently, yes! But when you go making statements like "nobody uses"
>when what you really mean is "*I* don't use," endlessly redefining the

You aspies need to stop taking things so literally. Quite obviously someone
uses it, but in the scheme of things Lua has a tiny userbase and is pretty
irrelevant in most language discussions.

>terms of your argument in an attempt to back-port correctness into your
>original statement only draws further attention to how you ran off your
>mouth without bothering to think in the first place.

See above.

On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 18:11:19 -0000 (UTC)
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:
>In article <uvm82d$11io2$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>....
>>I worked in defense writing software for missiles for a while. Also worked
>>on networking code for systems that literally transfered 100s of millions of
>>dollars worth of trades a day.
>
>Yes, you did, Donnie. Now be a good boy...

Might help if your sarcastic presumably cultural references meant anything to
anyone other than you.

On 16/04/2024 16:49, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 10:58:49 -0000 (UTC)
> Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>> the FreeBSD boot loader, another constrained environment. In the
>> end Forth proved too unpopular, few people touched it, and it is
>> being replaced with Lua now.
>
> So moving from one language hardly anyone uses to another that hardly anyone
> uses. You can't deny the consistency.
>

Lots of people use Lua. It is very popular as a small scripting
language, and as a language embedded in other programs - you only need
two or three C source files linked into your code to make Lua available,
and it's quite easy to expose C functions as Lua functions.

It is extremely popular in gaming - including for player scripting in
Minecraft.

On 16/04/2024 18:13, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:59:12 -0700
> John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 15:51:12 -0000 (UTC)
>> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>
>>>> I eagerly await your explanation of how that doesn't count since
>>>> it's outside your own sphere of experience.
>>>
>>> Oh, games. Serious applications then.
>>
>> Ah, the "applications that I don't consider important don't count"
>> strategy. Magnifique.
>
> I worked in defense writing software for missiles for a while.

Presumably only for a short while, or very indirectly. People who
/actually/ work in that kind of system, don't talk about it.

> Also worked
> on networking code for systems that literally transfered 100s of millions of
> dollars worth of trades a day.

Ah, so games - just with a different kind of score.

>
> But yeah, I'm sure scripting actions on Fortnite and Call of Duty compare.
> Even the game engines are written in C++.
>

And the game data and actions are written in Lua.

You do realise that the gaming industry is pretty big?

On 17/04/2024 04:45, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 16:42:43 +0100, Chris Elvidge wrote:
>
>> I use lua to enhance conky ...
>
> I know Lua was designed specifically to be embeddable, as an extension
> language for apps. But surprisingly, you see Python being used a lot for
> that, too.
>
> The most high-profile example has to be Blender. Now *there* is a
> scriptability API ...

Python is higher level, more "powerful" than Lua, and has vastly more
libraries. It is also vastly bigger. When you've got software the size
of Blender, Python is a good choice for an embedded scripting (or
programming :-) ) language. When you have something small, Lua is a
much better choice - it's fine for many microcontrollers. Lua adds
perhaps 100 KB to the program, while Python adds 20 MB (and Forth adds
maybe 5-10 KB, but is much harder to integrate with the C or C++ code).

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 11:36:15 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 16/04/2024 18:13, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 08:59:12 -0700
>> I worked in defense writing software for missiles for a while.
>
>Presumably only for a short while, or very indirectly. People who

A while and very directly, as in working on the code in the missile itself.

>/actually/ work in that kind of system, don't talk about it.

Who told you that? It was a dev job, not the SAS. Got it in the normal way
through a normal job agency. Do you think people who work on these systems
are in government bunkers guarded by an Elite corps upon pain of death if
anyone talks? It was an office in an industrial estate walking distance
from a McDonalds.

>> Also worked
>> on networking code for systems that literally transfered 100s of millions of
>> dollars worth of trades a day.
>
>Ah, so games - just with a different kind of score.

Games that the world relies on.

>> But yeah, I'm sure scripting actions on Fortnite and Call of Duty compare.
>> Even the game engines are written in C++.
>>
>
>And the game data and actions are written in Lua.

Not in most games. In fact the biggest part of the games industry ATM is
mobile and Lua won't be much in evidence there.

>You do realise that the gaming industry is pretty big?

Many industries are pretty big.

John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote or quoted:
>*waits for a Forth-head to chime in*

No Forth aficionado here, but I gotta chime in and say:

Remember those late-model HP calculators (the HP-48 series)
with their UPN shenanigans? Their language ("RPL") was pretty
darn similar to Forth, if you ask me!

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:22:27 -0000 (UTC)
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

> >*golf clap*
>
> Whatever that is.

(it means i am engaging in what is nominally a gesture of respect in a
mocking way, so as to indicate that your pompous demands for respect
are being deliberately ignored)

> You aspies need to stop taking things so literally. Quite obviously
> someone uses it, but in the scheme of things Lua has a tiny userbase
> and is pretty irrelevant in most language discussions.

Again, the "the thing I said was not in any meaningful sense 'correct,'
so here's how I've decided that evidence to the contrary doesn't count"
strategy. *chef kiss*

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 07:59:43 -0700
John Ames <commodorejohn@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 08:22:27 -0000 (UTC)
>Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>
>> >*golf clap*
>>
>> Whatever that is.
>
>(it means i am engaging in what is nominally a gesture of respect in a
>mocking way, so as to indicate that your pompous demands for respect
>are being deliberately ignored)

Wasn't a demand for respect, just making a point about serious applications
and the languages used for them. Games arn't serious.

>> You aspies need to stop taking things so literally. Quite obviously
>> someone uses it, but in the scheme of things Lua has a tiny userbase
>> and is pretty irrelevant in most language discussions.
>
>Again, the "the thing I said was not in any meaningful sense 'correct,'
>so here's how I've decided that evidence to the contrary doesn't count"
>strategy. *chef kiss*

Have another go aspie.

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 16:15:14 -0000 (UTC)
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:

> >(it means i am engaging in what is nominally a gesture of respect in
> >a mocking way, so as to indicate that your pompous demands for
> >respect are being deliberately ignored)
>
> Wasn't a demand for respect, just making a point about serious
> applications and the languages used for them. Games arn't serious.

Your definition of "serious applications" seems to coincide pretty
substantially with "fields I, personally, have worked in," particularly
since you've conveniently ignored the passel of non-game applications
that have also been cited in order to focus on the one you feel most
prepared to trivialize and discount in pursuance of your "argument."
And in addition to habitually slagging on applications and tools you
don't consider "serious" for no particular reason and with zero
provocation, you name-call like a grade-schooler. So it's difficult
*not* to parse your overall behavior as simian chest-thumping and
expecting to be treated as Le Fromage Grande on the basis of standards
conveniently set by yourself.

> Have another go aspie.

Case in point. But for the sake of argument, let's review:

Person: "This thing exists."
Muttley: "Nobody uses that."
People: "Here's all these things that use that."
Muttley: "Those don't count."
People: "Come again?"
Muttley: "They're not serious."
People: "What's your definition of 'serious' here?"
Muttley: "Things that I've worked on."
People: "...Um."
Muttley: "Also you're a poopiehead."

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

> On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 20:47:47 +0000, Javier wrote:
>
>> But for system automation tasks in a Posix OS, when you want to go above
>> the level of a simple shell script and use complex data structures, Perl
>> is the only language that fills that gap, any other language is
>> oververbose (lacks conciseness).
>
> Still some limitations in its data structures, though.

Such as? (I'm not disagreeing -- every languages have "limitations" --
I'm just trying to find out what you mean by a limitation in Perl's data
structures.)

> I see Perl 5.38 has
> added an “experimental” class feature, but it doesn’t do multiple
> inheritance or metaclasses.

Perl has had support for object-oriented programming (with multiple
inheritance) for many years -- too many for me to remember.

> Also I’m not sure if classes are first-class
> objects or not.

--
Ben.

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 21:05:03 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> Another thing about Forth is that it gives C a run for its money in
> potential for obfuscation :
>
> : 1 2 ;
> 1 1 + .
>
> Redefine "1". That'll keep the reader on his/her toes!

Redefinitions *stack,* too, so "foo" can mean multiple completely
different things in different contexts depending on which definition
was current at the time.

: foo 2 * ;
: double foo ;
3 foo .

: foo 1 + ;
3 foo .
3 double .

Genuine Forth-heads do staggering things (implementing OOP, etc.) with
this; personally, it gives *me* the willies.

On 17/04/2024 21:19, John Ames wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 21:05:03 +0200
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>
>> Another thing about Forth is that it gives C a run for its money in
>> potential for obfuscation :
>>
>> : 1 2 ;
>> 1 1 + .
>>
>> Redefine "1". That'll keep the reader on his/her toes!
>
> Redefinitions *stack,* too, so "foo" can mean multiple completely
> different things in different contexts depending on which definition
> was current at the time.
>
> : foo 2 * ;
> : double foo ;
> 3 foo .
>
> : foo 1 + ;
> 3 foo .
> 3 double .
>
> Genuine Forth-heads do staggering things (implementing OOP, etc.) with
> this; personally, it gives *me* the willies.
>

That's why mastering Forth takes a lot longer than just learning the
language!

I think that when finding the definition of a word, Forth just searches
back through the stack of definitions until it gets a hit. And if that
word definition uses other non-primitive words, it goes backwards from
where it currently is, looking only at definitions from before the
current word was defined. Is that right? And if so, can you do
"forward declarations", and mutual recursion somehow?

(I guess this is getting way off-topic for comp.unix.shell, and pretty
questionable for comp.unix.programmer - I don't know how much the
regulars there try to stay on-topic, or if they like threads like this.
I'll happily remove those groups from posts if there is objection to it,
but I don't want to cut out people who are interested if they want the
posts there.)

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 21:52:06 +0200
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:

> I think that when finding the definition of a word, Forth just
> searches back through the stack of definitions until it gets a hit.
> And if that word definition uses other non-primitive words, it goes
> backwards from where it currently is, looking only at definitions
> from before the current word was defined. Is that right? And if so,
> can you do "forward declarations", and mutual recursion somehow?

That's my understanding, yes; essentially, it's a consequence of the
fact that definitions are stored as a list of pointers, and re-
definitions are simply appended to the dictionary without going back
through the rest of it to update any pointers to the prior definition.
A strange design choice, but they're consistent with it.

Forward declarations are possible using the CREATE ... DOES> construct,
which creates a definition that invokes a function pointer which can be
changed later. I dunno about mutual recursion, but it wouldn't shock me
if the same trick could be applied for that.

(And yes, if we ought to pare this back to comp.lang.misc we certainly
can.)