Re: Lua's great (and LuaJIT's broken)

["Javier Guerra" <javier@...>]

On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Sebastien Loisel <loisel@temple.edu> wrote:
> 1) A "batteries included" distribution that includes an IDE, libraries such
> as numeric Lua, a GUI library (GTK+ looks good!), a plotting library, and
> whatever else Python has in its standard library. Also, a point-and-click

IDE:  personally, i think scripting languages don't need IDEs. just a
really good editor.  in Linux it's kate.  in fact, as much as i love
KDevelop when i do C/C++, i feel liberated when i use kate for
Lua/Python/Bash/JS

GUI: there's wxLua, LuaQt, and a few more. pick your poison :-)

> 2) More syntactic sugar for common things like lambdas and local-by-default

syntactic sugar: metalua seems the way to go.

local-by-default: considered harmful

> 3) More speed! The standard interpreter is a bit too slow (my standard test

i'm curious; how does plain Lua compares to other scrip languages in your code?

keep trying with LuaJIT, i also haven't been able to compile it, but
that's because i use amd64, and LuaJIT is 32-bit only; so i would have
to cross-compile it... still don't get all the compiler settings
right.  (mike? any advices on how to do this?)

and, (just to fall in the platform-war :-) does it make any sense to
use windows for number crunching? what if you later on want to go
cluster?


-- 
Javier