On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Patrick Donnelly <batr...@batbytes.com> wrote:
> Hello Felipe,
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contre...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Fredrik Gustafsson <iv...@iveqy.com> wrote:
>>> And see my humble test of what the speedup would be for git-submodule
>>> even with a faulty lua integration (still forking... but huge
>>> performance boost anyway):
>> I don't see how that is relevant, but I'm certain the same can be done
>> with Ruby.
>>> As you can see a lua integration would increase the git binary with
>> And my patch would increase it 49Kb.
> Unless you statically compile in Ruby (which is what the above quoted
> 300kb implied for Lua, in actually it is less than 200kb). [Also good
> luck statically compiling Python/Ruby into an executable.]
Yes, but that's not what the words said, the words said 'lua
integration' and 'ruby integration' would take that much. Either way
it doesn't matter, shared libraries exist for a reason. We don't need
to statically compile openssl do we? No? Good.
>> IMO the problem with lua is that it's too simple, it's syntax doesn't
>> resemble c, perl, python, shell, or ruby, it's just weird. Also, it's
>> much less popular, it's not as powerful, and there isn't a big
>> community involved with Git like with Ruby.
> *sigh*. At this point you've really cemented your purpose here as a
> language evangelist. It's unfortunate I have to reply to dismiss this
> FUD (which you complained about earlier, ironically) otherwise
> community accepts it as fact ("oh, I remember some guys saying Lua was
> a language for idiots...").
I dismissed the claim as FUD, when the conclusion was exaggerated, and
there was no evidence in sight.
When I say Ruby is a superior alternative, I provide evidence.
> Lua is by no means *simple*. Try "small" or "lightweight". Its syntax
> is engineered to be readable and amateur friendly. You've placed Ruby
> on a pedestal alongside those other major languages but its syntax
> doesn't resemble any of those.
>>Also, it's much less popular
> The hallmark of a good embedded language is your users don't even know
> it is there.
Users don't even know in what language those projects are programmed,
that's irrelevant. If MediaWiki does indeed use Lua, it must be a tiny
fraction of it.
Lua is #25 in the tiobe index with 0.518%, Ruby is #13 with 1.382%,
right next to Perl. Ruby is 54 times used more in GitHub than Lua.
These are the numbers I have, if you have other numbers, please, share
>> it's not as powerful,
> This is really funny to me. Despite Lua's small size, it has lead the
> way for modern dynamic language features, such as coroutines, block
> level scoping and real closure, incremental GC, a simple and usable C
> API (*yes* this is a feature), and a register based VM . It is
> consistently placed as the *fastest* dynamic language in existence
> [e.g. 2]? The LuaJIT compiler often achieves competitive or better
> performance than C . What about this isn't powerful?
Talk is cheap, show me the code.
Do what I did. Add lua bindings for several C functions, replace a
script with a Lua script (like git request-pull), replace a major
builtin (like git reset), and show how this succinct example I
provided in Ruby would look like:
cb_data = 'foo'
for_each_ref() do |name, sha1, flags|
puts '%s: %s: %s' % [cb_data, name, sha1_to_hex(sha1)]
Let's see how it looks.
Until you do that, I'd say you are the one that is language
evangelizing, I'm providing an actual real solution to a very
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html