3 ms·

Have you considered LuaJIT instead of v8? Given you are using v8 as a target VM for compiling another language to javascript, and lua is quite similar, although

by vmind 15y ago

Have you considered LuaJIT instead of v8? Given you are using v8 as a target VM for compiling another language to javascript, and lua is quite similar, although if other javascript libraries are used that could be a major factor. (This is assuming you are writing Chrysalis/Stencil)

DanWaterworth 15y ago
That's a good idea. (I am writing Chrysalis/Stencil). The current design is that there is a code-generator that outputs javascript which can be run on either side. But outputting Lua instead for the server-side would seem possible.
- silentbicycle 15y ago
  Also, compiling to Lua is not a bad option. Its syntax (http://www.lua.org/manual/5.1/manual.html#8 http://www.lua.org/manual/5.1/manual.html#8) is quite straightforward, and it's designed to compile rapidly (due to using table as a JSON-like serialization format). While writing out a (kinda silly) benchmark a while ago, it struck me that, while Python's compiler is rather slow, Lua's has very little impact on the overall runtime. Between that and the lack of weird corner cases in the grammar, I'm reasonably comfortable doing string-eval metaprogramming in Lua, something I would never do in Python. Benchmark (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1800396 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1800396) and commentary (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1804166 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1804166).
swah 15y ago
Bump! Lua is small and sweet. Zed Shaw picked it for his framework, not that unlike Raphters in some ways: http://tir.mongrel2.org/home http://tir.mongrel2.org/home
- throwa_way 15y ago
  Specifically, the luajit implementation is known for being ridiculously fast. http://luajit.org/performance.html http://luajit.org/performance.html http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2009-06/msg00071.html http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2009-06/msg00071.html
  - silentbicycle 15y ago
    Normal Lua's performance is also quite decent (especially compared to its peers: Python, Ruby, and Perl), and has a very clear path for moving hotspots out to C. LuaJIT's performance is just a bonus. :)

by vmind 15y ago

DanWaterworth 15y ago

That's a good idea. (I am writing Chrysalis/Stencil). The current design is that there is a code-generator that outputs javascript which can be run on either side. But outputting Lua instead for the server-side would seem possible.

silentbicycle 15y ago
Also, compiling to Lua is not a bad option. Its syntax (http://www.lua.org/manual/5.1/manual.html#8 http://www.lua.org/manual/5.1/manual.html#8) is quite straightforward, and it's designed to compile rapidly (due to using table as a JSON-like serialization format). While writing out a (kinda silly) benchmark a while ago, it struck me that, while Python's compiler is rather slow, Lua's has very little impact on the overall runtime. Between that and the lack of weird corner cases in the grammar, I'm reasonably comfortable doing string-eval metaprogramming in Lua, something I would never do in Python. Benchmark (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1800396 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1800396) and commentary (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1804166 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1804166).

swah 15y ago

Bump! Lua is small and sweet. Zed Shaw picked it for his framework, not that unlike Raphters in some ways: http://tir.mongrel2.org/home http://tir.mongrel2.org/home

throwa_way 15y ago
Specifically, the luajit implementation is known for being ridiculously fast. http://luajit.org/performance.html http://luajit.org/performance.html http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2009-06/msg00071.html http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2009-06/msg00071.html
- silentbicycle 15y ago
  Normal Lua's performance is also quite decent (especially compared to its peers: Python, Ruby, and Perl), and has a very clear path for moving hotspots out to C. LuaJIT's performance is just a bonus. :)