[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: SLB vs LuaBind
- From: liam mail <liam.list@...>
- Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 12:15:34 +0000
Tim, no problem it would not be difficult to create a test case I just though it would be nice to use the same examples as you did.
I don't really have anything broken out in a way I can share; it was
parts of my library, wrapped, so that it was as "real" of a benchmark
for me as possible.
>But, even so, If you think SLB can be improved for speed, something I
>didn't even started to think about, It would be great to hear where or
>even better how make it possible, I'm open to benchmarks, ideas, or
Jose profiling, looking at the generated assembly just the same techniques you would use on any other code; yet with the addition of only touching the Lua API when you must. I do use a simple speed comparison test and there are more detailed results available. Daniel Wallin did say that Luabind has a comparison test for other libraries yet IIRC due to dependancies he is unable to make it available.
>The lack of documentation is entirely my fault, I find very difficult
>to write it in English, if someone wants to
>volunteer for reviewing, or write it, that will be an enormous
>contribution to SLB and will also help lots of other people too
I have attempted to look at SLB a few times and some things put me off from even comparing it with OOLua, mostly the use of a dreaded singleton which I am not sure how it effects unrelated Lua states and see it will only close onexit. Then there is the unit tests which I like to consider as the documentation, if you do not mind I would like to suggest you rename the tests. For example as a none user of the library what actually is unit_00X.cpp (replace X with a number) testing, which script does it load? Maybe look at using a C++ or Lua testing framework,
personally I like to see setup, operation, assert, teardown. OOLua did in the past did load external scripts and run tests yet it
separated the code too much so instead it use strings for the Lua code to try and help ease the reading of the test units, although
saying that I sometimes generate the Lua code which makes reading slightly harder.
>One thing I think would be really helpful ... would be to present
>Luabind examples in SLB. I.e. if we had things like:'
Beo I could not disagree more. These "samples" should be the unit tests which get run all the time and are always correct. Do the SLB examples get run by Jose? I have no idea and they could be wrong which is much worse than having no examples, personally I do not think the Luabind samples or it's unit tests are anything to shout about.
*All personal opinion, take with a grain of salt :)