[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Things not to add to Lua (slices) [was: table insertion]
- From: Mike Pall <mikelu-0411@...>
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 13:33:48 +0100
David Given wrote:
> I'm sorry! I'm sorry! I didn't mean it! I should have known better than to
> mention Python here!
No, no. Don't worry. We can only learn from our big brothers. ;-)
> Seriously, it's very interesting to see actual numbers. I didn't realise the
> slice stuff was so infrequently used; you're right, it makes very little
> sense to use opcodes. Do you have the full list anywhere? Has anybody done
> any similar analysis for Lua?
I have sent the complete list to you privately, to avoid annoying the
list with Python stuff (anyone else mail me if you want it). The statistics
are not completely comparable due to different VM and language designs,
Doing the VM opcode analysis for Lua is easy, but we have a serious lack of
1. a huge, public library of Lua code to show static behaviour and
2. a set of representative benchmarks to show runtime behaviour.
The reason for 1. is that most extensions are written in straight C and
the reason for 2. is that Lua is used for so vastly different tasks,
that it is hard to select anything representative.
> table.move(desttable, deststart, destend, srctable, srcstart, srcend)
The more arguments this function gets, the less I like the idea.
This ain't like memcpy() anymore. I have to think a bit more about this.