Re: S.W.O.T analysis

[Pierre Chapuis <catwell@...>]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:54:02 -0400, Patrick Mc(avery wrote:

> If Python runs something in 200ms and Lua runs it in 50ms I don't
> care, it's still a blink of an eye.

Depends how many times.

$ time for i in $(seq 1 100); do python -c "print('hello world')" 
>/dev/null; done

real	0m1.921s
user	0m0.995s
sys	0m0.875s

$ time for i in $(seq 1 100); do lua -e "print('hello world')" 
>/dev/null; done

real	0m0.384s
user	0m0.049s
sys	0m0.296s

$ time for i in $(seq 1 100); do luajit -e "print('hello world')" 
>/dev/null; done

real	0m0.341s
user	0m0.032s
sys	0m0.283s

Which one would you (not) choose to serve CGIs?

> Python is so much easier to learn then Lua and Haskell

At a basic level, Python is slightly easier to learn than Lua.
Both are much easier to learn than Haskell.

If you want to know the language inside-out and be able to make
it co-operate with C, Lua wins over both other languages.

> I wonder if Forth died because the memory savings no longer offset 
> and
> difficult programming model? It also looks like the Forth community
> tore it in half, with one camp wanting it bigger and more feature 
> rich
> while the other camp wanted it small and simple.

Does this mean you have to opt for intermediate mediocrity, or
does this mean you have to chose your side?

> I think there is a real danger of ignoring the non-programmer(are
> modules simple to them? and how many geologists understand weak
> tables?) and not focusing on adding in the facilities for easier
> programming. I think there is also a real danger of not having enough
> advanced features to compete with Haskell and other fat FP languages.

Lua is not a FP language, although it has the features required to
do untyped FP (closures, true tail calls, 1st class functions).
It is very far from being Haskell. I would rather compare it to
LISP. Actually, I see Lua as Lisp with a more imperative style
and another base data structure.

--
Pierre Chapuis