Re:Should Apache replace its current httpd.conf with Lua?
by silentbicycle on Thursday September 10, 2009 @10:29AM
(#815299)
http://people.apache.org/~rbowen/presentations/apacheconEU20...
Right, and it's a language with a brittle, inconsistently documented, largely ad hoc syntax. While Lua's syntax has its quirks (the syntax for lambdas is a little cumbersome, arrays are indexed from 1), that's because it is designed to be straightforward for simple use by non-programmers. The advanced features* don't get in the way if you're only using it as a log/config/etc. file format.
* Tail-call optimization, closures, coroutines, etc.
Re:Should Apache replace its current httpd.conf with Lua?
by compay on Thursday September 10, 2009 @11:37AM
(#815439)
Thank you, I was looking for a link to that presentation this morning and couldn't remember who had given it.
Re:Should Apache replace its current httpd.conf with Lua?
by yesimahuman on Thursday September 10, 2009 @03:05PM
(#815922)
In your example though, the complexity comes from having to know what things like "Order allow,deny" are. If you moved to lua I assume they would still use the same terminology, you would just have to represent it in lua instead of the current format. I think a file like this is easier for someone who has even a little bit of HTML experience to understand versus lua.
This is representative of the more complex entries:
That is a language, and it's one that exists solely for Apache config files. I think using an actual programming language would be easier for most people.