On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 3:01 PM, Joe Finn <
warriorjoe118@gmail.com> wrote:
> Based on my experience with Java JIT, and without detailed knowledge of Lua
> JIT, I think the JIT probably produces much less efficient code than the C
> compiler for the same "script". That's just the nature of JITs -- they don't
> have a lot of time to do their job, the user is waiting while they compile,
> so they must be **FAST**. I'd be very surprised if the Lua JIT produces code
> that's more efficient than what a C compiler produces at -O2 or even -O1.
> There's usually a 3X improvement for cpu-bound algorithms going from -O1 to
> -O4 so that means that highly optimized C code can be (at least) four times
> faster than an equivalent JIT-ed Lua program.
>
> Add to that the need for the Lua JIT-ed program to support introspection and
> the overhead of the data types of Lua versus the much simpler data types
> that are primitives in C, and I wouldn't be surprised for specific programs
> to see compiled C code be 10x more efficient (both space and time-wise) than
> an equivalent Lua program when running on a JIT.
>
> --Joe
>
> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 2:52 PM, Patrick McCavery <
patrick@cakeandfile.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> I know many many people are writing applications as a mix of Lua and C but
>> I am wondering if this is becoming more unnecessary now that we have LuaJit,
>> which is pretty bloody fast.
>>
>> I know Lua can't be used in kernel space and that without C there would be
>> few libraries, are there any other reasons why why LuaJit could not be used
>> in place of C?
>>
>> --Patrick
>>
>
>