On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Tyler Romeo <tylerromeo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This is the exact kind of attitude the op-ed in the
Signpost is addressing.
When making major feature decision, such as redoing the entire templating
system, we cannot just say to editors "oh, if you want some input, go and
join our mailing list". That's just a passive-aggressive way of pushing
editors out of the conversation. How many purely editors, i.e., not
developers, are on this list actively participating in discussion?
And this isn't a technical decision, it's a requirements decision. We're
not deciding what algorithm to use, or what object design to implement,
we're deciding what features would be best for the users of Wikipedia. The
reason this extension was implemented (hopefully) was so that users could
have a better templating experience, but how can you possibly assume to
know what is best for the user without asking the users themselves? And no,
we cannot be expected to consult every language wiki, but on the other hand
we cannot completely ignore the community and suddenly launch this new
extension on them as if they'd known about it for years.
*--*
*Tyler Romeo*
Stevens Institute of Technology, Class of 2015
Major in Computer Science
www.whizkidztech.com | tylerromeo(a)gmail.com
I think its a little late for this. I'm pretty sure there was
discussions with (template editor) users about lua years ago.
The whole lua thing has literally been in discussion in some form or
another for probably at least 5 years.
From what I understand lua was not chosen just randomly
by throwing a
bunch of languages in a hat,
there were many requirements, such as sandbox-ability, performance
concerns, and ease of implementing
resource limits, etc. If I recall lua came out the clear winner.
-bawolff