On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM, Patrick Donnelly <batrick@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hello Felipe, > > On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 4:29 AM, Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 3:12 AM, Fredrik Gustafsson <iveqy@xxxxxxxxx> 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): >>> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/228031/focus=228051 >> >> 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 >>> 300kb. >> >> 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 > > https://sites.google.com/site/marbux/home/where-lua-is-used > > 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 them. >> 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 [1]. 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 [3]. 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)] end 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 important problem. -- Felipe Contreras -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html