Re: Reducing the size of Lua.

[Joseph Stewart <joseph.stewart@...>]

What size do you want it to be (both on disk and runtime size)?

What are you trying to accomplish?

-joe


On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 11:45:55 +1100, Greg McCreath
<Greg.McCreath@tafmo.com> wrote:
> 
> Thanks Ashwin,
> 
> We certainly want the parser in the device.  I guess we could go back to
> v4, but then we've got ourselves down a dead end street.  No more bug
> fixes.
> 
> The language looks perfect and very powerful.  We just need to make it
> smaller and then make sure it can run at an acceptable speed!
> 
> All help appreciated.
> 
> Greg.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br
> [mailto:lua-bounces@bazar2.conectiva.com.br] On Behalf Of Ashwin Hirschi
> Sent: Tuesday, 1 February 2005 11:33 AM
> To: Lua list
> Subject: Re: Reducing the size of Lua.
> 
> > What options do we have to reduce the size of the Lua.  We do not need
> > many of the newish language features.  I notice a steady progression
> of
> > complexity since the earlier releases (Coroutines and such).  Can we
> > remove them?
> 
> Things definitely seem to be getting more complex alright...
> 
> How about having a look at Lua 4? I'm not sure if it's actually smaller,
> but... it doesn't contain all the newer stuff [;-)].
> 
> Also, I remember the parser could be decoupled in earlier versions. Not
> sure if that's still the case, though. I've never done this myself.
> You'd have to rely on precompiled scripts, for this option to be viable.
> 
> Ashwin.
> --
> no signature is a signature.
> 
> 


-- 
Person who say it cannot be done should not interrupt person doing it.
 -- Old Scottish Proverb