3 ms·
> is that it? Performance? Performance, size and compatibility. It's essentially a drop-in replacement for the stock Lua 5.1 implementation, with the same smal
by pansa2 2y ago
> is that it? Performance?
Performance, size and compatibility. It's essentially a drop-in replacement for the stock Lua 5.1 implementation, with the same small size but with much higher performance. About the only downside compared to stock Lua 5.1 is that it's less portable.
However, development of LuaJIT almost stopped ~10 years ago, and only seems to be picking up again recently. In terms of the language it hasn't kept up with all the changes in Lua 5.2, let alone 5.3 or 5.4. And in terms of implementation, its performance is still impressive but no longer best-in-class compared to other dynamic-language JITs (e.g. for JavaScript).
- CyberDildonics 2y agoWhere are you seeing benchmarks that javascript can beat luajit?
- pansa2 2y agoHere, for example: https://www.quora.com/Is-LuaJIT-still-faster-than-JavaScript-V8/answer/Rochus-Keller?a https://www.quora.com/Is-LuaJIT-still-faster-than-JavaScript... LuaJIT's speed is very impressive, but the optimizations it can use are limited by its desire to remain lightweight. It's understandable that JavaScript implementations, which don't have that restriction, can use different techniques and work out faster overall.
- imtringued 2y agoI would like to say that something that doesn't get used, doesn't work out faster overall.
- pansa2 2y ago> something that doesn't get used Sorry, you've lost me. What doesn't get used?