lua-users home
lua-l archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

On 09/05/2011 11.44, Henning Diedrich wrote:
On 5/9/11 6:50 AM, Lorenzo Donati wrote:
To sum up: I think that the best strategy when talking about Lua in a
neutral way is to introduce the audience to the nature of Lua and its
ecosystem beforehand.

Hi Lorenzo,

writing docs, I like to provide for the reality that people don't read
top down without skipping ahead! Or get familiar with the parts of the
ecosystem that would have provided the background.

Fair enough, indeed.

Doing benchmarks, specifically, I'd appreciate if there was a short,
clearly defined label to distinguish the original Lua VM from the LuaJIT
VM. At best, something that does tell people, hey, there's something I
don't know how to interpret, if they should run into it and not
understand it. 'Original Lua VM' does not really fit the bill, for a
couple of reasons.

It's but a practical question. Of course it will solve itself over time,
something will stick.

Well, I think that something has already stuck. For what I've seen in this couple of years on the list and examining the archives and the WIKI, from a pure practical point of view (see continuation below).

Lua 5.1.4 vs LuaJIT 2 works well, except that LuaJIT 2 will give as its
version Lua 5.1, rightly so. This will become important once the core
community shifts to 5.2 and the rift between the original and JIT world
will be more pronounced. So while those tags are correct, to me, they
don't seem to be quite clear enough.

As you point out, "Lua 5.1.4" vs. "LuaJIT 2" works well, but this requires that one has at least a superficial knowledge of what Lua and LuaJIT are (so a little bit of "ecosystem" knowledge is mandatory here, IMO).

If you're looking for a tag that will convey all the information to the unaware, I fear you will never be really satisfied. There is not even a clearly specified numbering convention for PUC Lua versions (I read something on an old thread on how to compare Lua version numbers, and that issue came out). I think that even Mike Pall hasn't specified a strict numbering scheme for LuaJIT and its future versions (not to mention other forks/variants already mentioned in another branch of this thread).

So knowing a bit of the ecosystem is unavoidable, IMO, whatever label you could devise to indicate the two (or more) things.

There is no enough room in a "standard report column header" to communicate all this complexity! :-)

No matter what, Lua reality is rather complex and multifaceted (as I discovered with time) - and still not very known among the wider audience (I suspect that most scientists have heard of languages such as Python, Javascript or Java, but -alas! - very few know something about Lua).

That's also a consequence of Lua's reality being no-hype. No Lua "evangelists" here, only enthusiasts! Let religion out of technical matters! Amen! hooray! :-D

From a very practical POV the only useful thing, IMHO, is to stick to denominations widespread in the community and add a footnote to the report with caveats and pointers for the unaware (maybe a first level, boilerplate, 4-6 liner, with essential infos, containing further links to the official docs or other relevant resources).

After all, whoever reads a technical report should know how to read technical papers if pointed in the right direction.