Re: Best Practices for Lua -> "Lua+"?

["Alexander Gladysh" <agladysh@...>]

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Asko Kauppi <askok@dnainternet.net> wrote:
>  Yes, LNUM patch is at the moment The way to optimize Lua integer
>  performance.
>
>  I have yet to hear what Lua authors think of the latest version, but
>  it would seem to me to be beneficial for the whole language to include
>  the patch (or: parts of it).
>
>  The current version does not slow down FP platforms. In places, it
>  simplifies the Lua code internally. It has been extensively tested and
>  it comes with a test suite to make sure changes wouldn't break anything.

Good. Then I'll clarify my reply to the OP question on changing core Lua:

> >>>> * Seperating LuaNumber into ints/floats for range/performance
>  >>>> reasons

1. I have no pressing reason to do that right now.
2. However, as I see from performance charts that it would most likely
benefit my code, I'd like to have it in the core language.
3. Speaking about LNUM patch specifically, I would not apply it unless
I have to -- I'm too conservative, and prefer to have unpatched albeit
somewhat slower Lua.

BTW, is LNUM patch compatible with LuaJIT? Is it needed with LuaJIT at
all? When I would have to divert from pure unmodified Lua for
performance reasons, I'll give LuaJIT a try first -- as it seems to
have greater potential in performance gain. While I have no resources
to invest into this switch yet, I eagerly anticipate it.

Obviously, having faster core language would only delay such switch,
and such switch would only delay heavy algorithmic optimization -- but
both delays may be significant.

Alexander.