Re: TechRepublic article about languages to avoid in 2018

[Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>]

> > luaffi is not a serious option, and cannot be; the whole philosophy of
> > FFI demands a compiler. FFI is what made LuaJIT definitively a fork of
> > Lua.
> >
> 
> Did you mean that luaffi is not a serious option for inclusion in Lua
> (because it is not ANSI C etc.)?

By "option" I meant that luaffi is not a real alternative to ffi
in LuaJIT. The use of ffi in LuaJIT makes programs much faster
(when compiled), while the use of luaffi in Lua makes programs much
slower. That is not a fault of luaffi; at most it is a fault of C.


> LuaJIT's ffi is a library and I am not sure why the inclusion of a
> library should cause LuaJIT to be classed as a 'fork' - although
> 'fork' is problematic word in my view anyway.

ffi in LuaJIT is not a library.

-- Roberto