3 ms·

It is. But JavaScript is the new assembly language, all you need is a Lua to JS compiler or a whatever to JS compiler.

by ianlevesque 11y ago

teacup50 11y ago
I genuinely can't tell whether you're joking.
- ianlevesque 11y ago
  Not joking, just dying a little inside.
hackcasual 11y ago
https://kripken.github.io/lua.vm.js/lua.vm.js.html https://kripken.github.io/lua.vm.js/lua.vm.js.html
vardump 11y ago
Last I checked Javascript implementations were slower than LuaJIT. Cost of implementing Lua tables, meta-tables, co-routines, etc. in Javascript will be rather high. Anywhere between 2-50x. If native Lua engine is removed, you can just forget about it then. So what you're saying doesn't make any sense for anything remotely performance sensitive.
- bryanlarsen 11y ago
  lua compiled to asm.js is 64% of the speed of lua native https://kripken.github.io/lua.vm.js/lua.vm.js.html https://kripken.github.io/lua.vm.js/lua.vm.js.html
  - pygy_ 11y ago
    ... which is about 10 times slower than the LuaJIT compiler used by OpenResty.
  - Touche 11y ago
    So that might be good enough in the browser but on the server where an optimized Lua engine exists, why?
  - daurnimator 11y ago
    That's not compiling lua to asm.js; it's running the lua vm in asm.js. A straight up transpilation is other projects like lua.js. But you loose really nice core lua features like coroutines...
- striking 11y ago
  It's a joke. Like haha, but serious, because some people actually believe this.
- kybernetikos 11y ago
  > Cost of implementing Lua tables, meta-tables Tables and meta tables are nearly identical to objects and prototypes in javascript. Why would the cost of implementing them be high?
  - fanf2 11y ago
    JavaScript objects are indexed by strings. Lua tables are indexed by arbitrary objects. In JS a[1] and a["1"] are the same element but they are different in Lua. In Lua a[{}] is a new element indexed by the identity of the new object literal, and will be a different element every time the expression is evaluated.

It is. But JavaScript is the new assembly language, all you need is a Lua to JS compiler or a whatever to JS compiler.

teacup50 11y ago

I genuinely can't tell whether you're joking.

ianlevesque 11y ago
Not joking, just dying a little inside.

hackcasual 11y ago

https://kripken.github.io/lua.vm.js/lua.vm.js.html https://kripken.github.io/lua.vm.js/lua.vm.js.html

vardump 11y ago

Last I checked Javascript implementations were slower than LuaJIT. Cost of implementing Lua tables, meta-tables, co-routines, etc. in Javascript will be rather high. Anywhere between 2-50x. If native Lua engine is removed, you can just forget about it then. So what you're saying doesn't make any sense for anything remotely performance sensitive.

bryanlarsen 11y ago
lua compiled to asm.js is 64% of the speed of lua native https://kripken.github.io/lua.vm.js/lua.vm.js.html https://kripken.github.io/lua.vm.js/lua.vm.js.html
- pygy_ 11y ago
  ... which is about 10 times slower than the LuaJIT compiler used by OpenResty.
- Touche 11y ago
  So that might be good enough in the browser but on the server where an optimized Lua engine exists, why?
- daurnimator 11y ago
  That's not compiling lua to asm.js; it's running the lua vm in asm.js. A straight up transpilation is other projects like lua.js. But you loose really nice core lua features like coroutines...
striking 11y ago
It's a joke. Like haha, but serious, because some people actually believe this.
kybernetikos 11y ago
> Cost of implementing Lua tables, meta-tables Tables and meta tables are nearly identical to objects and prototypes in javascript. Why would the cost of implementing them be high?
- fanf2 11y ago
  JavaScript objects are indexed by strings. Lua tables are indexed by arbitrary objects. In JS a[1] and a["1"] are the same element but they are different in Lua. In Lua a[{}] is a new element indexed by the identity of the new object literal, and will be a different element every time the expression is evaluated.