[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Selenophobia
- From: Sean Conner <sean@...>
- Date: Thu, 30 Mar 2017 12:55:59 -0400
It was thus said that the Great pierre once stated:
> My 2 cents....
> I think that having some access to metaprogramming (like in luaMacro or
> metalua) in the core is a missing part of lua. Having so can help
> extend the language and ease language extension, adding new syntactic
> sugar on the fly (for example, linked to an extension library (so
> libraries will also include macro definition)).
The issue I see with such a facility is that you can change the language
significantly enough that someone not familiar with the codebase (but with
Lua otherwise) might not understand what's going on. I have enough problems
with getting my fellow cow-orkers to use Lua  without making it even
> The threading will be great too... but I understand it will prevent lua
> to be compiled on some systems... may be, at least, a parallel_for in
> the language with a default implementation to a normal for, and a link
> to tbb where available?
At what point is is cheaper to create the threads vs. just doing
everything sequentially? A thousand elements? A million? Ten?
Also, once you allow threading access to a single Lua state, you have the
Python problem of a global interpreter lock.
 Not because Lua is too obtuse or has unfamiliar concepts, but mainly
because they can't search for a known solution to a problem because
of the lack of standard modules. If someone wants to use
networking, Python has a standard module for that. Or for iterating
through a folder. Stuff that Lua lacks.