Re: Lua is faster than Java?

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

Wow, I'm very excited by all this (as I'm sure many others are!).

I would faint in extacy if you said that most of the JIT was written in Lua itself...

-joe

On 7/25/05, Mike Pall <mikelu-0507@mike.de> wrote:

Hi,

Chris Marrin wrote:
> For us the issue is not whether or not Lua is faster or slower than
> Java. It is that it is incredibly fast and adds only around 200k (with
> all the libs) to our engine. Java is just too heavyweight to fit into
> our core.

In true Lua spirit I'm trying to cram the whole JIT engine
in under 50k (I'm at 23K right now). No, this is not a typo.

> My fear is that a JIT for Lua will just make things too damn fast :-)

My current guess, based on some micro-benchmarks: 2x-10x
YMMV of course.

This means there is hardly any reason to write C code anymore,
except for computing-intensive or low-level stuff. And you
still need C for interfacing to system libraries (but I have
some ideas for that, too).

Bye,
     Mike

-- 
If it ain't broke, break it.  How else are you going to figure out how it works?