4 ms·
Lua presumes you've already got your own batteries, thank you, and you don't want those crummy off-brand ones that always seem to come "included". Thus, I feel
by nihilocrat 18y ago
Lua presumes you've already got your own batteries, thank you, and you don't want those crummy off-brand ones that always seem to come "included".
Thus, I feel a Lua - to - Ruby/Python comparison is sort of erroneous. Use Lua when you already have all your tools. Use Ruby/Python when you don't have any tools, and you want cool whizbang higher-level stuff.
Honestly the benchmark is wholly unsurprising to me; Lua is a much more minimal language. If you need another language to lump Lua with, lump it with Javascript sooner than you would Ruby or Python.
- nuclear_eclipse 18y agoHowever, as a longtime user of Lua, I would still greatly appreciate a default set of "batteries-included" libraries as an option, like what you'll find in Python, so that it could/would be that much faster to write simple applications in pure Lua, without needing to deal with compiling/bridging to C/C++ libraries...
- silentbicycle 18y agoAs a longtime Lua user, you're probably aware of this, but I'm also writing for the other people reading the thread... :) Look at LuaRocks (http://www.luarocks.org/ http://www.luarocks.org/). It's an attempt at a CPAN-like package collection. The stdlib and bitlib libraries, in particular, are pretty necessary. (Also, http://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/~lhf/ftp/lua/ http://www.tecgraf.puc-rio.br/~lhf/ftp/lua/ has some others.) Lua errs on the side of only putting what can be implemented fully portably in ANSI C in its standard libary, which makes it a bit spare.