lua-users home
lua-l archive

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

--- On Tue, 5/17/11, Francesco Abbate <> wrote:

> > Was inclusion of beta LuaJIT for the last 5 years very
> fortunate? ;-)
> Why you should think it was not fortunate ?

I did not say inclusion of beta LuaJIT was not fortunate.

I asked Leo Razoumov whether inclusion of beta LuaJIT was fortunate.

> The inclusion of LuaJIT was actually very fortunate ...

Yes, for 5 years the benchmarks game publicised LuaJIT beyond the Lua community.

> >> Well, arbitrary decisions are what they are --
> arbitrary decisions
> >
> > Are you talking about the previous inclusion of
> LuaJIT? :-)
> and what about ATS, the programming language that nobody
> uses, that
> does not even have a real compiler (it does generate C
> code) and with
> all the samples of code written by a single person (the
> maintainer of
> the ATS compiler) ?

How many of the LuaJIT code samples do you think were written by a single person, the maintainer of LuaJIT? :-)

What about ATS? - "To show working programs written in less familiar programming languages"

> Why the custom memory allocator was rejected for the binary
> tree application ? That was proposed many times for C and it
> seems that there was no logical explication for the ban.

Do we need to see 100 different C custom memory allocators before we understand that a custom implementation will likely be faster than a more general implementation?

Rather than 100 different custom memory allocators designed specially for a tiny piece of benchmark code, I think it would be more interesting to see the performance of a general purpose implementation like tcmalloc.

> Yes, the choices of the computer benchmark game are pretty
> arbitrary.

The distinction isn't between arbitrary choices and principled choices - it's between choices you like and choices you don't like :-)