[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: S.W.O.T analysis
- From: Pierre Chapuis <catwell@...>
- Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 14:55:53 +0200
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:54:02 -0400, Patrick Mc(avery wrote:
If Python runs something in 200ms and Lua runs it in 50ms I don't
care, it's still a blink of an eye.
Depends how many times.
$ time for i in $(seq 1 100); do python -c "print('hello world')"
$ time for i in $(seq 1 100); do lua -e "print('hello world')"
$ time for i in $(seq 1 100); do luajit -e "print('hello world')"
Which one would you (not) choose to serve CGIs?
Python is so much easier to learn then Lua and Haskell
At a basic level, Python is slightly easier to learn than Lua.
Both are much easier to learn than Haskell.
If you want to know the language inside-out and be able to make
it co-operate with C, Lua wins over both other languages.
I wonder if Forth died because the memory savings no longer offset
difficult programming model? It also looks like the Forth community
tore it in half, with one camp wanting it bigger and more feature
while the other camp wanted it small and simple.
Does this mean you have to opt for intermediate mediocrity, or
does this mean you have to chose your side?
I think there is a real danger of ignoring the non-programmer(are
modules simple to them? and how many geologists understand weak
tables?) and not focusing on adding in the facilities for easier
programming. I think there is also a real danger of not having enough
advanced features to compete with Haskell and other fat FP languages.
Lua is not a FP language, although it has the features required to
do untyped FP (closures, true tail calls, 1st class functions).
It is very far from being Haskell. I would rather compare it to
LISP. Actually, I see Lua as Lisp with a more imperative style
and another base data structure.