• In response to this thread.

    First of all I suggest familiarizing yourself with the reasons as to why Lua was "ported" to MediaWiki (I use ported loosely because the implementation is more of a bridge between MediaWiki and the Lua interpreter).

    Secondly, you need to ask yourself this question, "Why would the language I use to generate content matter to a search engine?". If you come up with anything more than it doesn't you should take a refresher course on what SEO is and how it works.

    To a search engine what generates the content does not matter, it's what the content is that matters. A search engine could not care less if you used ALGOL or Turbo PASCAL to create the page just so long as it can output a readable page.

    Lastly, why bride some of these languages to MediaWiki? Why would MediaWiki need a bridge to CoffeeScript when you can just compile down the CoffeeScript and give the JavaScript output to MediaWiki to serve? Why bridge Common Lisp? What benefit does it have over Lua? It's certainly not easier to use/learn and you'd need to do a lot of tests to even see if it yielded a performance boost. And still, after all of that you need to see if the microsecond boost in speed is worth using it over Lua.

    Now, I am by no means saying that you shouldn't do these things, but I am questioning why you would.

    As for a diverse programming language and SEO, no, no it does not effect SEO at all, though it does considerably increase the complexity of any given system.

    Lemme know what you think of this. I'd love to hear back from you.

      Loading editor
    • I'm vaguely familiar about why Lua was ported.

      As to your question of "Why would the language I use to generate content matter to a search engine?", the answer is "I don't know". I tend to avoid AI research in general, which includes search engine crawlers. I do not know if programming language diversity would affect those crawlers, even though I sort-of understand the pagerank algorithm. That's why I asked.

      To answer your questions about making bridges, there are several answers. For starters, some people prefer Coffeescript over Javascript. I'm not one of these people, but despite judging people for my personal amusement, I'm not going to judge someone for preferring Coffeescript over Javascript. It's just for the developers.

      For LISP, while there is a matter of programming language preference, LISP was simply designed for different applications than Javascript, and as a result, some things are easier in JS, and some are easier in Lisp. My idea here is that we the developers should have the tools that are easiest to use and work the best for what we need.

      In summary, the reason I'm planning to make these languages available is so the developers have more and better tools. I know that's a questionable goal here, but so is roughly 80% of the stuff I code, so that's just fitting a theme.

      If language diversity doesn't introduce any problems, then today is going to be fun.

        Loading editor
    • Developers can already readily use CoffeeScript as I mentioned. You simply develop your script in CoffeeScript, compile it to JavaScript, and hand it off to MediaWiki to serve to users.

      As for LISP, you are correct, they were made for two very different things. This begs the question, why would you want to use it on the web? No modern browser has a built in LISP interpreter so LISP cannot be used client side. At best it can be implemented server side but again why? We already have Lua and it suits the way wikis work very well.

        Loading editor
    • I'm aware they can already do that. The solution I'm making is simply more direct.

      We can get it working client side. That's off-the-shelf. To answer your question of "would you want to use it on the web?", the answer is "Who knows? Let's make this available and see what people make!". I actually don't even like LISP. I'm just making usable for people who do.

      Yes, we have Lua. And with what I'm making, we'll have a few other languages. Yes, Lua works well. This way, some other things will work too, probably poorly.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.