lua-users home
lua-l archive

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

On Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:06:49 -0300
Jorge <> wrote:

> On 28/07/13 09:05, Leo Romanoff wrote:
> > Which means that LuaJIT jitted and interpreted versions take a
> > second and third place overall. Way ahead of the next competitor.
> > -Leo 
> The conclusion I reached stems from this.
> You have a very neat language. It lacks nothing and wastes nothing.
> And you get great performance, specially in relation to the
> hassle-freeness and portability of the deployment.
> If you need more performance, because you happen to need some
> esoteric stuff (for a scripting language), you do not start spoiling
> the language, but try the JIT compiler. You get tons of performance
> at the cost of having to test for hardware support, checking compiler
> logs, and stuff like that.
> And if even then it doesn't have the performance characteristics you 
> need, perhaps it was the wrong language to start with.

The other thing is, the speed difference between Lua array usage and
Python/Perl array usage appears to be 10% of less. It's almost never
worth using a tougher language to get a 10% runtime speed improvement.
As far as C, yeah, when I made my random number generator capable
of quickly calculating billions of primes
of course I used C. My mama didn't raise no fool.



Steve Litt                *
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance