10 comments

[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 22.9 ms ] thread
This is interesting but I feel like a lot of these Rust-inspired package managers are a little... too inspired by Rust. This project for instance uses .toml as a config file format, presumably because that's what Cargo does.

But I think for this project in particular, Lua for the config files would have been a better choice!

I think that Lua tries to be a good configuration language (it started as a configuration language called SOL (sun), which configured reports for lithology profiles), and in fact Luarocks uses "rockspec" for their config, which is syntactically Lua. Lux claims to be inspired by Luarocks, and yet they chose to use toml over lua for config. I'm wondering why? What was wrong with lua that made toml a better choice?

edit: Okay, I've found more information where they say they support both formats... which, I don't know if that's the right call? Seems like going with one or the other is better from a project management standpoint, although I can see why they want to give users the option.

> Not everyone may want to migrate (nor use) the TOML system for describing a project. For this reason, I’d had liked Lux to support a rockspec file alongside the TOML file (similar to the old project.rockspec format). This has finally been implemented! By creating a file called extra.rockspec in the project root, you will instruct Lux to merge the TOML and the rockspec together when performing any sort of operation.

"beautiful", "elegant", and "tasteful" have all been used to puff up various libraries, frameworks, etc, and now we have "luxurious" to add to the long list of ridiculous adjectives used to puff up tech. Lovely.
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
I don’t understand why a package manager needs lint support.
Because despite what the tagline says it's not a package manager, but a project manager.
I recently added a linter to my Common Lisp package manager, ocicl. It seemed like a natural place to put it.
I've been awaiting the rocks.nvim team to migrate to this
Okay, sounds good, let’s see:

>+ Create and manage Lua projects

Yay!

>- Easily manage dependencies, build steps and more through the lux.toml file.

Boo! Ermm .. .toml?

You lost me at .toml.

Why is .toml being used to configure Lua?

(Disclaimer: I am a long term Lua user/developer and have a strong opinion about all things Lua.)