RE: strfind "bug"

["John Passaniti" <jpass@...>]

> Indeed; this is one of the several reasons I think
> it would be good for even the standard Lua libraries
> to be written using tolua (or a similar tool), and
> for this practice to be encouraged for everyone.

Before people jump on this bandwagon, I have a question.  I've never used
tolua or SWIG or othersuch.  What kind of run-time overhead (processor time,
memory space, etc.) is involved with using such tools?

My concern is that I use Lua in *tiny* embedded environments.  I'm one of
those folks building Lua into products running under small and slowish
16-bit processors without a lot of ROM or RAM.  Other folks here seem to
have targets with fast processors, gobs of memory, fast floating point, and
so on.  Keep in mind that some of us are running Lua in products that don't
even have operating systems!

>From past conversation, I have no fear that the Lua authors will keep folks
like me in mind.  But as the Lua community seems to be growing rapidly, I
hope they remember those of us who are using Lua in small embedded
environments.  I like the swelling interest Lua seems to be generating these
days, but I'll have to jump ship the moment Lua starts to turn into a
resource hog like Perl.

Of course, maybe my fears are ungrounded and tools like tolua and SWIG
impose no additional run-time overhead than doing the equivalent by hand.
I'd just like someone to confirm or deny that...