1. Euphoria vs Lua
Does anybody has compared Euphoria and Lua (from PUC in Rio)?
They have a lot in common and mainly differ by names rather by concepts:
Euphoria has sequence, Lua has table etc...
It seems that Lua is a bit slower, probably due to the uniqueness of type (no
distinction between
integers and other 'atoms'). There are also some very interesting concepts in
Lua as the metatables.
Could be a great addition to Euphoria.
Best regards.
2. Re: Euphoria vs Lua
On 3 Aug 2004, at 13:38, Jean-Francois Soucaille wrote:
>
>
> posted by: Jean-Francois Soucaille <bunuel66 at hotmail.com>
>
>
> Does anybody has compared Euphoria and Lua (from PUC in Rio)?
> They have a lot in common and mainly differ by names rather by concepts:
> Euphoria has sequence, Lua has table etc...
> It seems that Lua is a bit slower, probably due to the uniqueness of type (no
> distinction between integers and other 'atoms'). There are also some very
> interesting concepts in Lua as the metatables. Could be a great addition to
> Euphoria.
Such as string execution. I'd like a goto also.
Kat
3. Re: Euphoria vs Lua
Jean-Francois Soucaille wrote:
>
> Does anybody has compared Euphoria and Lua (from PUC in Rio)?
> They have a lot in common and mainly differ by names rather by concepts:
> Euphoria has sequence, Lua has table etc...
Yes, I use Lua. The syntax is very similar to Euphoria, and there are
several features which are implemented better than Euphoria, IMO.
> It seems that Lua is a bit slower, probably due to the uniqueness of type (no
> distinction
> between
> integers and other 'atoms'). There are also some very interesting concepts in
> Lua as
> the metatables.
Depends. Lua is faster than Euphoria if your program does much writing
to the screen (The Linux version, at least)
Lua seems to be more difficult to link to libraries. For example,
I couldn't find a Lua/GTK package anywhere.
Irv
4. Re: Euphoria vs Lua
Well, regarding speed i have made some very modest benchmarks of Euphoria vs
Lua.
One is opening a file as bytes, thresholding the values and writing back the
file.
The file is closed during processing and the written file differs from the read
one.
On this benchmark Euphoria is at least 10 time faster than Lua, I guess it is
probably
even faster but I haven't run iteratively just not to access the disk a lot of
times.
On a second bench which is purely computational: expo computation with a Taylor
serie
without any optimization Euphoria is 100 time faster than Lua. That time the
bench is
100000 time to be accurate. Even if the accuracy of measurements is not perfect
because I use the os.clock() function for Lua and Time() for Euphoria it is
really obvious
just waiting for the Lua program that Euphoria is a lot faster.
About display I haven't made any comparison, but I have notices in some previous
programs
with Euphoria that it was not very quick on Win32 platform. Not critically
slow, but not really fast.
I suspect that Lua handles any variable as an associative table in an unified
way.
>From an intellectual standpoint it's nice but rather slow in practice.
Too bad. Would have been great to have the functionalities of Lua with the
speed of Euphoria, not to mention that Lua is from Brazil which is a nice
way to promote achievements in this nation (Brazil is not only girls and cachaca
.
Best regards.
