Lucee dialect

Pop over to the Lucee Language discussion forum and at your 2 cents worth.

Andrew Penhorwood

Which meta point?

  • we should have a spec like PHP (finally started after 20 years)
  • stop micha acting on a whim
  • that the name Lucee is crap
  • should we, should we not have a separate lucee dialect
  • it’s a language, not a dialect
  • how to change the poorly realised “approach” to .lucee

I humbly suggest that linking to a blog post covering multiple topics and
saying “discuss” in a separate forum is inappropriate.

If any of these topics have merit, then lets discuss them with a view to
making Lucee a better product. But lets have constructive discussions
about specific language topics.

GBOn Tuesday, 16 June 2015 18:00:50 UTC+10, Tom Chiverton wrote:

Please bring your 2c – but with a bit more focus :wink:

I think he was making a meta-point though ?

Pop over to the Lucee Language discussion forum and at your 2 cents worth.

http://lang.lucee.org/t/approach-lucee-language-decisions-properly/119?u=apenhorwood

I’ve closed that topic. Much better for us to have specific topics for
discussion in the language forum.

Please bring your 2c – but with a bit more focus :wink:

GBOn Tuesday, 16 June 2015 02:55:38 UTC+10, Andrew Penhorwood wrote:

Discussion needs to take place about Lucee the lanugage. While I take
issue with Adam’s approach many times we are all better off because of his
involvement. He brings up valid points. There needs to be a roadmap,
vision of where we want Lucee to go that is discussed before letting Lucee
1.0 out the door. Once it is out it can’t be recalled easily.

I see Lucee the language as the future of CF. Having a compatible CFML
language that co-exist with a modern Lucee language is a huge win. Let’s
discuss it and hammer out the details.

Andrew Penhorwood

Please bring your 2c – but with a bit more focus :wink:

I think he was making a meta-point though ?

Which meta point?

  • we should have a spec like PHP (finally started after 20 years)
  • stop micha acting on a whim
  • that the name Lucee is crap
  • should we, should we not have a separate lucee dialect
  • it’s a language, not a dialect
  • how to change the poorly realised “approach” to .lucee

I humbly suggest that linking to a blog post covering multiple topics and
saying “discuss” in a separate forum is inappropriate.

Which is not what I did. I specifically singled out one para from the
article as the discussion point, and made a point of saying the link to the
blof article was merely framing.

This is the single discussion point:

Basically… the entire approach so far to this .lucee thing has been…
erm… “poorly realised” so far (IMO, as with everything on this blog), and
now is precisely the time for this to be addressed. Before it goes out the
door. Don’t let it get out the door, yet.

And it seemed the most appropriate place for that discussion was on the
language forum.

It’s not a direct, single issue, I grant you. But topics don’t
intrinsically need to be on a single, fine-tuned point. You seem to
contend that they do, but that is specious.

I think there’s a number of reasons why .lucee should be withdrawn from
the Lucee 5 release, however I thought it was discussion worthy as it’s a
big subject, and it’s not all about what I happen to think. I also want to
hear what LAS people have to say, and stuff like that.

You seem to be moderating a forum post based on my my blog article said,
and you not liking the subjectivity in the blog article (you not liking the
article is entirely fair enough!), rather than what the forum thread itself
said. Which I think is perhaps a bit OTT.On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 10:14:51 UTC+1, Geoff Bowers wrote:

On Tuesday, 16 June 2015 18:00:50 UTC+10, Tom Chiverton wrote:


Adam

Please bring your 2c – but with a bit more focus :wink:

I think he was making a meta-point though ?

Tom

This.
I’ve seen no language plan, no overall all “what is it going to solve”,
that then breaks down to “and this is how…” and even summarizes what it
won’t do or be.
You can’t push a language out the door that’s just CFML with s/cf/:confused: -
there’s no point to that for the reason’s given above.

I appreciate there may have already been very intense discussions about
this inside Lucee and/or Railo, but none of that is public, so you are
going to have to start again with us. What is the value of .lucee, given
CFML exists ? If it’s just CFML without backwards compatibility say so; but
then you have to write a proper spec for the language and then start
implementing it
.
If the first I see is the implementation, something is wrong.

TomOn Tuesday, June 16, 2015 at 11:43:03 AM UTC+1, Andrew Penhorwood wrote:

Discussion needs to take place about Lucee the lanugage. While I take
issue with Adam’s approach many times we are all better off because of his
involvement. He brings up valid points. There needs to be a roadmap,
vision of where we want Lucee to go that is discussed before letting Lucee
1.0 out the door. Once it is out it can’t be recalled easily.