lua-users home
lua-l archive

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

Am 18.01.15 um 22:10 schrieb Leo Romanoff:

On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Richard Hundt <
<>> wrote:

    > Well the objectives are very different I think. I am looking to
    > improve efficiency of certain operations. So the static typing is for
    > that purpose. Therefore the features I intend to support will be a
    > subset of above. For example, as of now I have no intention to provide
    > syntactic support for classes or interfaces. Also no concept of union
    > types.

    Ah, okay, hence the additional ops. That's got me thinking: wouldn't
    it be feasible to do run-time instruction specialization without the
    need to add syntax (so you'd patch in your new ops dynamically)? If it
    worked though, you could run vanilla Lua modules and perhaps get a
    performance boost. Maybe that's a ton of work though without
    substantial gains because recording, narrowing/widening overhead might
    be too high to be beneficial. Dunno. Just an idle thought.

Do you mean something like this?

"Optimizing Lua using run-time type specialization"

How is adding type checking, in any form, optimizing Lua? Isn't it one of Lua's great benefits that it is actually not statically typed?

In my experience, with a reasonably large code base, Lua not being statically typed is much more of a benefit than a defect, so I wonder why this idea of making Lua statically typed pops up from time to time.

Michael Schröder starts his text with claiming that "Like other dynamically typed languages, Lua spends a significant amount of execution time on type checks.". Is that really the case? Are type checks really using a lot of CPU cycles? I have my doubts, but I have not done the research.