I have always thought that those qualities should be shown, not said. Both in software and in life.

Honestly it makes me roll my eyes, "let's describe our software utility as if we're trapped in a perfume commercial". But on the other hand, I think when creating something it does help to have underlying vision, even if it's abstract or doesn't quite make sense.

I think that is why despite it being eye roll inducing, there is still value to these descriptors as it explains what they are going for. In this case it tells us they are prioritizing the feel over everything else and for a package manager that is pretty solid focus.

As a Lua dev, I’m pro “anything that makes Lua easier to use/deploy”, and while do I see “lux” from the perspective of precocious naming attempts, I can also immediately overlook it by treating “LUX” as more of an acronym for “Lua User Experience”, so if it is actually able to deliver that promise, the eyes are gonna stop rolling and start focusing on using it ..

It's just a silly pun. Search for "moon illuminance" and perhaps you'll get it :)

It’s okay, you know why? Because this is Lua.

Lua developers do, indeed, deserve a bit of lugubriousity with regards to describing luxurious things.

I’m all for ‘lux’ as a tool, if it can be used as the tip of the knife that delivers the pearly oyster.

For a lot of Lua projects, there are other extremes, by the way. There are helaciously discomfiting situations with regards Lua package management in certain environments.

If Lua gets something that makes it far, far easier to deploy, that pearl gets fatter.

If the biggest flaw in a project is that the name sounds pretentious to some people, it's probably doing something right