Re: any benefit to throwing off lua51 constraints?
- From: Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@xxxxxxxx>
- To: luajit <luajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2013 21:59:54 -0500
Cool. I said my piece and I do appreciate that you and William put a finer
point on your posts.
I read them and can't help but think about how I'd feel, having done the
hard work of making a language and then to have someone call it behind,
obsolete, vanilla, etc.
I wouldn't want my baby called ugly and now I know that you did not intend
to do that to the PUC/RIO team. Perhaps they, Mike and you are of a level
in this industry where such evaluations are normal and I should read them
differently than how I am and just watch the show.
Thank you.
-Andrew
On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Dan Eloff <dan.eloff@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> @Andrew please don't mistake me as saying that we should stop caring about
> Lua compatibility, far from it, I think it's essential for LuaJIT in
> continuing to gain in popularity. But at the same time I also can see a
> likely day when Lua PUC is irrelevant. We're a long way from there, but
> it's not inconceivable. Better tools win out over the long-haul and I think
> LuaJIT is a better tool. That opinion may not be representative of
> developers at large, in which case that future won't come to pass. I
> am definitely not saying that Lua has brought nothing of value to the
> table, or will not continue to do so (I thought goto in 5.2 was a rather
> nice idea.) As you say, without Lua there would be no LuaJIT.
>
> However, for example, if Mike felt it was worthwhile to abandon the Lua
> debug api for a more LuaJIT friendly one, we're probably at a point where
> it would not overly hurt LuaJIT adoption, and it's possible the gains would
> be worth it.
>
> @Josh string operations are slow in LuaJIT right now. Most of the time it
> doesn't matter much, because if you really want string performance you can
> use the ffi and character arrays and get near native performance. String
> operations could be improved, for example, you'll note string concatenation
> with .. causes the JIT to punt at the moment, add the -jv flag when running
> LuaJIT on your program to see.) But they can never be as fast as using
> character buffers. It's the usual tradeoff of how fast is fast enough and
> how willing you are to trade complexity of code for speed of execution.
>
> Cheers,
> Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2013 at 6:09 PM, William Adams <william_a_adams@xxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> And by the way, in case people believe I am somehow denouncing previous
>> work, and pushing Mike as the sole genius of the Lua world, nothing could
>> be further from the truth.
>>
>> I believe the original Lua work represents true genius. I love the
>> simplicity and elegance of the core language, and do not really wish to add
>> a ton of "features" to it.
>>
>> I am just posing the question and challenging the community as I
>> challenge myself, to think about how Lua/JIT can evolve from this point
>> forward.
>>
>> -- William
>> ===============================
>> - Shaping clay is easier than digging it out of the ground.
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
