0x01

Thanks for this. I've read that post before, and back then I just took the explanation to mean we're dropping the UI. I can see now that was not the meaning.

> we need developers to like it before end users will

While I can see how there is some separation of concerns as mentioned in that post, I think the above quote doesn't have to be true in order for Eve to succeed. It has the potential to contradict the whole programming designed for humans line. Developers can be quite happy with some pretty funky syntax/abstractions which won't seem remotely obvious/intuitive to non-programmers. If developers' considerations are put before non-programmers, Eve might end up a language for developers, as opposed to the intended audience. Personally I think that means that you can't drop the UI even for now. It has to be the only interface. Otherwise you won't get the interest from non-programmers. What developers might like and grok, non-developers might not.

Just one data point from somebody interested in this sort of thing.

maybe I should have said supposed to be human readable. I share your sentiment. I saw a comment on here once justifying that claim by saying something along the lines of "but if you look at the text and ignore the symbols you get the gist", which is not the original promise of Eve in my opinion [0]

Edit: found the source: [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12819973

I was keeping a close eye on Eve until it changed direction from programming for everyone to yet another lisp. Is there any writeup/discussion on why this happened?

I do like learning about mind-expanding languages, and something resonated with me when the CardWiki interface was revealed. I get that this language is very 'human readable' but at the end of the day if I want to read or write it I will actually have to put a lot of time into learning it.

I'm already suffering decision paralysis with my current language shortlist and this language doesn't make the cut. The card wiki was innovative, like LightTable. To me, this is 'just a language'. I realised you moved away from the wiki idea for a reason but is putting a GUI on the language still on the roadmap?

Please can you tell me how I can verify whether my details have been leaked?

I've recently purchased a domain from namecheap, with whoisguard, and if I recall correctly I didn't have to turn it on. I whois'd myself and found that it didn't leak anything. It didn't occur to me that scrapers can get at the info before you protect it.

Perhaps this has changed since your experience? Please could anybody else verify one way or another?

Cheers

Ah, this explains why running a file on the .o file said it was lua bytecode. This feature of luajit makes it much more appealing. Thanks for the info!

Thank you for the info!

That's a neat trick! Is there any reason you can't do this with luac? I tried the equivalent to what you're doing with luac, but gcc complains that "member libmylib.a(luafunc.o) in archive is not an object".

What's the difference between the bytecode generated by luajit compared to luac?

Apologies. I should have referenced Lua 5.3 instead as it has both integer and bitwise operator support. This should satisfy the concerns regarding crypto implementation.

As for the space considerations, I have two ways to reason this:

* Wouldn't it only take up 1x414K? If you create luaSSL as a drop in replacement to OpenSSL, you'd only need one copy in your filesystem, just as you only have one OpenSSL.

* Even if you bloat your binary sizes by 414K per executable, isn't it worth it to go from "yes, it could be unsafe, we'll never know... let's wait for the next CVE" to 100% guaranteed no memory faults EVER? Nothing is free, and this could be a cheap price to pay for the guarantee of memory safety, and the implications that come with it.

Edit: wording

If we accept that C is here to stay for the time being, but is difficult to manage memory, then why don't we use a mid-way solution?

Lua is built on c, and is much more (than C) memory safe. It retains all the advantages of C (ie, can go anywhere), and we limit the C to 17.3k (as of 5.2.3) lines of c, which is relatively static (won't change, won't bloat in the same way maintaining/building on current C SSL implementations), and could allow us to handle memory safely.

I'm curious why this approach is not used. Portability? Proficiency? Lua is quite possibly the most beautiful language to read. I can't see any downsides, but I'll gladly be enlightened!

You're right of course, I definitely do not want to do that. But I know I would vote individually on the issues that I care about.

For example, if everybody had a say, SOPA wouldn't have gotten as far as it did. I would have voted it out, as would everybody else. But instead we had to sign a petition once it was nearly through. We could all be pro-active about... well, everything! But instead, we're kept on our toes being reactive to it all. (opt in not out, people!!! This ideal should exist everywhere but instead it's nowhere to be found).

If everybody did that, I believe that each of us would have more of an effect on the country than electing somebody who is never going to agree 100% with my beliefs, but is the best fit. That's insane! There will always be compromise. In England, a party can promise to change x and y if you vote for them, but once they finally come to power they might go back on their promise. Okay, so what did I vote for then? Nothing. And there's no accountability. This system is thoroughly broken and I refuse to acknowledge it by 'playing along'. And the worst thing about this is that nobody seems to notice, or care that picking the best out of a bad bunch is how we should make our country work.

Vote Waldo.

No. I've never voted, not once.

I do not believe I live in a democracy, even though that's what we're calling it. I believe that by voting I'm validating a broken system.

Who are all these people making calls about everything and setting rules, while knowing relatively little on the subject matter? I personally think a democracy would be every eligable person being able to contribute to the decision of (ie. voting on) these calls, rather than simply picking the 'guy' who makes them. Let the experts in their fields have a say. I don't know what such a system would look like - but only if something like that were in place would I call it a democracy. What we have right now is the illusion of a democracy. I'm not interested in voting, but I am interested in fixing this mess.

Back down to earth.. I think the barrier to entry for understanding current politics is unrealistically high: in order for me to make a call on a party I need to know quite a lot of things about each. There is no 'official source', which forces me to google, which forces me to read some third party source, whether it's a news site or some blog. Either way it's more often than not a very biased opinion that does not weigh all sides equally, and I can never form a complete picture. Too much time is required to contribute for what I would gain from it, and I have better things to do. Is anybody aware of an aggregator or a summary site of all political parties views? Can I look up a party's stance on something and cross reference what the other parties stances are on the same subject?