341
Software is slow because of bad design, not slow languages (www.seangoedecke.com)
submitted 1 week ago by to c/programming@programming.dev
132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Lua also doesn't provide everything Python does and has a totally different use case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    Oh really? Well guess what, that's a huge benefit for Lua because its entire total size is around 500 KB. It's loaded into memory and executed start to finish faster than you blink. If you need a ‘standard library’, just use Penlight. As I already mentioned, vast majority of libraries for Lua are written in... Lua itself, because it's so goddamn fast. I'm using Fennel, the Lua Lisp that's transcribed on-the-fly, and it's still faster than Python. Lua is great for interactive tasks like desktop automation, e.g. with Alfred, Hammerspoon (which latter uses Lua throughout), or for scripting in Termux on the phone where Python would kill the memory immediately.

    Lua's problems with the absence of popular libraries aren't because of any language issues (even the lack of null can be dealt with), but solely due to its non-adoption in the masses. It is very popular as an embedded language in gaming, though, and that's not a coincidence, because it fits that niche precisely because of its small size and extraordinary speed.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    Well guess what, that’s a huge benefit for Lua because its entire total size is around 500 KB.

    Filesize doesn't matter, if the functionality is missing. Lua is just not a direct comparison and replacement for Python. Penlight isn't standard library. In example if I want to write a commandline script, I better off doing it in Python. The language is much better to me, has better features, has a standard library builtin and is even installed in all Linux distributions.

    Lua is meant to be embedded into other applications, not meant to be used on its own.

    Lua’s problems with the absence of popular libraries aren’t because of any language issues (even the lack of null can be dealt with), but solely due to its non-adoption in the masses.

    Wrong. This is a design choice, because Lua isn't meant to be used by its own. The embedded environment is meant to provide the functionality. In example in Neovim they provide their own functionality embedded within the editor. I can't use that script on a different environment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

    Filesize doesn’t matter, if the functionality is missing.

    Lua is meant to be embedded into other applications, not meant to be used on its own.

    Wrong. Lua is meant to be used on its own, because it's so freaking good. It provides everything one needs to begin, while allowing for a wide array of libraries to be made. But I know you haven't made any serious number of scripts in either language, simply because you claim 'filesize doesn't matter', while Lua is so fast partly because of its size.

    This is a design choice, because Lua isn’t meant to be used by its own.

    Wrong again. Lua is amazing on its own, but third-party libraries make it even better.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent