[11:34:20] <cirwin>	what would have to be done if I wanted to have Extension:Lua on Wiktionary?
[11:59:43] <Shirley>	With any extension, it needs a security review by one of the main sysadmins.
[11:59:48] <Shirley>	Currently that's really only Tim.
[12:00:11] <Shirley>	With that particular extension, it introduces a whole new concept to Wikimedia wikis that nobody has agreed to.
[12:00:26] <cirwin>	so, first make a case that it is the best solution
[12:00:32] <Shirley>	Once you get past those two (huge) barriers, it can be enabled. :-)
[12:00:34] <Shirley>	Yes.
[12:00:46] <Shirley>	But bear in mind that this discussion has been had about a million times.
[12:01:04] <Shirley>	The current thinking in this area is that JavaScript would be best for this type of thing.
[12:01:11] <cirwin>	that would also be cool
[12:01:20] <Shirley>	Lua has issues with third-party installs, I think?
[12:01:20] <cirwin>	would i get less resistance if I just implemented that?
[12:01:24] <Shirley>	There's some definite issue with Lua.
[12:01:36] <Shirley>	Probably.
[12:01:38] <cirwin>	well as it stands it needs some harder resource limits
[12:01:51] <Shirley>	JavaScript is well known on the Web.
[12:01:57] <Shirley>	Lua isn't.
[12:02:03] <cirwin>	Lua is well known amoung C++ gamerz :)
[12:02:03] <Shirley>	That's probably the biggest advantage to JS.
[12:02:20] <Shirley>	Right, but the idea is to make the language choice less esoteric. Less {{{{oh my god}}}}.
[12:02:32] <cirwin>	:)
[12:02:35] <cirwin>	precisely
[12:02:36] <Shirley>	Picking Lua instead of JavaScript goes against that.
[12:02:50] <Shirley>	You're going to have a difficult time finding people willing to discuss this again, though.
[12:02:55] <cirwin>	well, Lua is a massive leap forward from ParserFunctions, but I agree Javascript would be beter
[12:03:00] <cirwin>	has anyone done any work on that yet?
[12:03:12] <Shirley>	Hmm, I don't think so.
[12:03:18] <Shirley>	This just came up on wikitech-l again.
[12:03:22] <Shirley>	There are PHP-based options.
[12:03:36] <cirwin>	hrm, I thought I was on wikitech-l, I obviously haven't been paying enough attention
[12:04:21] <Shirley>	It's buried in one of the threads.
[12:04:38] <Shirley>	Actually, might be foundation-l...
[12:04:48] <cirwin>	ah ok
[12:06:02] <cirwin>	I was just reading the wikipedia killer thread on wikitech-l, and came to the conclusion that the fastest way of allowing innovation on Wiktionary would be to allow real programming. There are so many "trivial" tasks that need doing, but just can't be done in a sane way at the moment.
[12:09:04] <Shirley>	For sure.
[12:09:13] <Shirley>	And now I remember where I read those comments...
[12:09:28] <Shirley>	A link from the mailing lists.
[12:09:28] <cirwin>	oh?
[12:09:42] <Shirley>	https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6455#c131 and https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6455#c132
[12:10:15] <Shirley>	If you want to know what current progress is on a templating language, that's something wikitech-l might be able to answer. As far as I know, there isn't really anything already for MediaWiki.
[12:11:15] <cirwin>	well, Extension:Lua used to work, and there's Extension:Winter ??? Extension:SSJavascript would be the next logical step :p
[12:11:24] <cirwin>	thanks for the link
[12:11:43] <Shirley>	The archives will have the older discussion about Lua, JavaScript, PHP, etc.
[12:11:52] <Shirley>	But it's all mostly useless tail-chasing.
[12:11:56] <cirwin>	yes
[12:12:10] <cirwin>	it's very frustrating trying to get anything done
[12:12:11] <Shirley>	The basic requirements are clear: it needs to be secure, efficient, and portable.
[12:12:30] <cirwin>	portable shouldn't be a problem with javascript
[12:12:30] <Shirley>	It's easy enough to get things done if you have commit access. Getting those things live... well. :-)
[12:12:50] <Shirley>	Depends how it's implemented. If it's server-side processing, the parser needs to be in PHP.
[12:13:24] <Shirley>	No crazy external dependencies.
[12:15:05] <cirwin>	I've got commit access, though I got bored after a year of waiting for code review last time
[12:15:05] <cirwin>	how to implement it is an interesting question. I'm not sure how you go about putting hard limits on resource usage of javascript (something that's pretty easy with lua)
[12:15:38] <Shirley>	I guess it's still unclear to me if someone would implement it server-side or client-side.
[12:15:49] <cirwin>	client-side?
[12:16:15] <Shirley>	JavaScript typically runs client-side. But there are surely advantages to using the language markup and parsing it server-side.
[12:16:31] <cirwin>	right, I was assuming it would be server-side
[12:16:44] <Shirley>	Okay.
[12:16:50] <cirwin>	all I want is the ability to call a function in a non-ParserFunction language during the parse of a page
[12:17:03] <Shirley>	I think most non-MW developers would assume JavaScript would be client-side.
[12:17:20] <cirwin>	many people assume that, it doesn't make them right :p
[12:17:49] <Shirley>	People assume it because it's generally true. Server-side parsing of JS is fairly rare.
[12:18:00] <Shirley>	I'm not sure I even know of anyone doing it.
[12:18:13] <cirwin>	um..
[12:18:20] <cirwin>	it's not really that rare anymore
[12:18:36] <Shirley>	Really
[12:18:37] <Shirley>	?
[12:18:53] <cirwin>	the popular kid on the block is NodeJS
[12:19:02] <cirwin>	but there are many other server-side javascript VMs
[13:13:02] <Holek>	well, I guess Mediawiki ain't the best framework for a dictionary website after all ;)
[13:14:15] <cirwin>	mediawiki is a pretty good base
[13:14:28] <cirwin>	preciscely because it lets you do whatever you want