[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Python people strive to embrace LuaJIT
- From: HyperHacker <hyperhacker@...>
- Date: Sat, 4 Sep 2010 06:25:23 -0600
On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 03:54, Alexander Gladysh <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 13:24, Stefan Behnel <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Alexander Gladysh, 25.07.2010 07:11:
>>> But Lua discrimination strikes again:
>>> <...>Lua code is harder to write than Python code as the language
>>> lacks most of the batteries that Python includes. Writing large
>>> programs in Lua is rather futile<...>
>> Sorry for the "discrimination", I see now that it can easily be read that
>> way. I changed that paragraph to the following, hoping that it makes it
>> clearer what I actually meant to say.
>> However, Lua code is harder to write than Python code as language and
>> runtime lack many of the batteries that Python includes. Lua is not commonly
>> used as primary language for large applications, but it provides a perfect
>> backup language when raw speed is required and the edit-compile-run cycles
>> of binary extension modules are too heavy and too static for agile
> This is not the "absolute truth". You should at least add "in my
> opinion" to this paragraph.
> 1. "Lua code is harder to write than Python code as language". This is
> really a matter of personal preference. I, personally, believe that
> Python is harder — its syntax is not designed half as well as Lua's.
> But that is my opinion, nothing more.
> 2. "...Runtime lack many of the batteries that Python includes". I'm
> not sure that it is a "runtime" to blame. I understand "runtime" here
> as "what is packaged with the core of the language". I see it as a the
> correct way to distribute the language — core separately from the
> libraries (but, again, that is my personal opinion, not absolute
> truth). On to the other hand, if you'd said something along the lines
> that "Lua ecosystem is heavily underdeveloped when compared to
> Pythons", this would be the truth.
> 3. "...Lua is not commonly used as primary language for large
> applications". Now I'm not sure what to say here. I, personally, use
> it in this way. Most of my recent professional projects were written
> primarily in Lua. (That is, there was more Lua code than C or C++
> code.) And we're talking about projects of 100-300 KLOC of Lua and
> C++. This is the way, as I understand, that Programming in Lua books
> adverstise — when coding, do it in Lua. If you don't fit in speed /
> memory constraints, rewrite to the host language. On to the other
> hand, when compared to Python, in general (not mine) practice, Lua is
> definitely less used as a primary language and more as a secondary
> scripting language.
> 4. "[Lua] provides a perfect backup language when raw speed is
> required and the edit-compile-run cycles of binary extension modules
> are too heavy and too static for agile development." Now that is,
> probably, the truth (however this is not the everything that Lua is,
> far from it). So, if you'd add something along the lines that "When
> your primary language is Python..." to that statement, this will,
> probably, be correct.
> With respect,
> P.S. I apologize if I may sound harsh or impolite somewhere in my
> letter, this is not intended. I also not trying to put words in your
> mouth, merely trying to understand what I (personally) feel wrong with
> your post and how to make it look more objective.
I wonder how difficult it would be to make whitespace work in Lua like
in Python? Get something like metaLua to translate an increase in
indentation to 'do'/'then' as needed and a decrease to 'end'. Might be
Sent from my toaster.