On Wed, Dec 27, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Javier Guerra Giraldez <javier@guerrag.com> wrote:
> if that was a reference to defining those macros that essentially add lock operations to every mutation, it does feel about right since in essence it adds a Global Interpreter Lock, the dreaded "GIL problem" that made Python folks essentially abandon threading in favor of communicating processes.
I mean a reference to a test, with a full disclosure of the methods, whose results would indicate that something "slowed Lua down to Python speeds". Note that even the formulation of the statement is dubious, because apparently a non-MT-safe version of Lua is compared with an MT-safe version of Lua, which can only reasonably be done with a single-threaded test, so what is being compared to what and why is that relevant? Secondly, the formulation suggests that "stock" Lua is significantly "faster" than Python, while there are some results, such as [1], that show that the situation is more complicated than that.
