Slashdot article: "Searching for the Best Scripting Language"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
115 messages Options
1234 ... 6
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Slashdot article: "Searching for the Best Scripting Language"

Andre Costa-2
This was posted today on Slashdot:

"Folks at the Scriptometer conducted a practical survey of which
scripting language is the best. While question like that is bound to
generate flamewars between the usual Perl vs PHP, Python vs Perl,
VBScript vs everything crowds, the Scriptometer survey is practical: if
I have to write a script, I have to write it fast, it has to be small
(less typing), it should allow me to either debug itself via a debugger
or just verbose output mode. sh, Perl and Ruby won the competition, and
with the difference of 1-2 points they were essentially tied for first
place. Smalltalk, tcc, C# and Java are the last ones, with Java being
completely unusable in scripting environment (part of that could be the
fact that neither Java nor C# are scripting languages). See the 'Hello
world' examples and the smallest code examples. Interesting that ICFP
contests lately pronounced OCaml as the winner for rapid development."

Lua is there (although they used Lua 4.0), and it's ranked 10th place.
The criteria used are very subjective and most likely not entirely
relevant to most of the people here. Nevertheless, Lua makes it again
among other scripting languages on yet another survey.

(worth noting is that a couple of tasks marked as TD on the "Program
Lengths" chart could be implemented easily with extensions such as POSIX
support by LHF)

The URL is
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/12/2125229&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=156

Best,

Andre

-- 
Andre Oliveira da Costa

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slashdot article: "Searching for the Best Scripting Language"

Jeff-2
Hello Andre,

Sunday, June 13, 2004, 1:35:45 PM, you wrote:

AC> "Folks at the Scriptometer conducted a practical survey of which
AC> scripting language is the best.... sh, Perl and Ruby won the
AC> competition..."

I would personally give Perl the #1 spot for its versatility as a
scripting language and all the modules it has available to it
(although I am not a Perl scripter).

AC> Lua is there (although they used Lua 4.0), and it's ranked 10th place.
AC> The criteria used are very subjective and most likely not entirely
AC> relevant to most of the people here. Nevertheless, Lua makes it again
AC> among other scripting languages on yet another survey.

However, why was Lua (let alone C#, Java and Smalltalk) part of this
"shootout"? None of them are scripting languages. Lua is embedded and
the others are compiled languages (no different from C other than they
compile to bytecode or have interactive environments).

For embedded languages, though, Lua takes the cake. It is the *only*
library that, whenever I start a new C project, automatically gets
linked and included. I always use it, even if it is just for loading
state saving files...

-- 
Best regards,
 Jeff                            [hidden email]



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slashdot article: "Searching for the Best Scripting Language"

Brian Hook-4
> However, why was Lua (let alone C#, Java and Smalltalk) part of
> this "shootout"? None of them are scripting languages. 

The problem is that there is no universally accepted definition of 
"scripting language".  For some, it means Lua/Small, for others it 
means Python/Perl/PHP.  The two camps are very different.

Brian



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slashdot article: "Searching for the Best Scripting Language"

Asko Kauppi-3
In reply to this post by Jeff-2

Lua _is_ a scripting language. You only have one code, which is both source and executable.
For me, that's scripting.. ;)

-ak

13.6.2004 kello 22:19, Jeff kirjoitti:

...
However, why was Lua (let alone C#, Java and Smalltalk) part of this
"shootout"? None of them are scripting languages. Lua is embedded and
the others are compiled languages (no different from C other than they
compile to bytecode or have interactive environments).



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

Asko Kauppi-3
In reply to this post by Andre Costa-2

Having proper debugger support (not only API, but a _real_ debugger) would have gained +10 points.

Imho, this is currently a very high priority lack for Lua newcomers. People just are used to proper tools, and -face it- when was the last time you wrote print('something') in a script just to see..? ;)

-ak

13.6.2004 kello 21:35, Andre Costa kirjoitti:

 This was posted today on Slashdot:

"Folks at the Scriptometer conducted a practical survey of which
scripting language is the best. While question like that is bound to
generate flamewars between the usual Perl vs PHP, Python vs Perl,
VBScript vs everything crowds, the Scriptometer survey is practical: if
I have to write a script, I have to write it fast, it has to be small
(less typing), it should allow me to either debug itself via a debugger
or just verbose output mode. sh, Perl and Ruby won the competition, and
with the difference of 1-2 points they were essentially tied for first
place. Smalltalk, tcc, C# and Java are the last ones, with Java being
completely unusable in scripting environment (part of that could be the
fact that neither Java nor C# are scripting languages). See the 'Hello
world' examples and the smallest code examples. Interesting that ICFP
contests lately pronounced OCaml as the winner for rapid development."

Lua is there (although they used Lua 4.0), and it's ranked 10th place.
The criteria used are very subjective and most likely not entirely
relevant to most of the people here. Nevertheless, Lua makes it again
among other scripting languages on yet another survey.

(worth noting is that a couple of tasks marked as TD on the "Program
Lengths" chart could be implemented easily with extensions such as POSIX
support by LHF)

The URL is
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/06/12/ 2125229&mode=thread&tid=126&tid=156

Best,

Andre

--
Andre Oliveira da Costa



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slashdot article: "Searching for the Best Scripting Language"

Philippe Lhoste
In reply to this post by Jeff-2
Jeff wrote:
AC> Lua is there (although they used Lua 4.0), and it's ranked 10th place.
AC> The criteria used are very subjective and most likely not entirely
AC> relevant to most of the people here. Nevertheless, Lua makes it again
AC> among other scripting languages on yet another survey.

However, why was Lua (let alone C#, Java and Smalltalk) part of this
"shootout"? None of them are scripting languages. Lua is embedded and
the others are compiled languages (no different from C other than they
compile to bytecode or have interactive environments).

Sorry? I use Lua daily for simple scripting usage, like transforming a text file. I even made a relatively complex set of Lua scripts to normalize CSV data and to format result to printed labels.

All this with Lua.exe, so indeed, Lua excels at embedded usages, but is also useful for shell scripting.

BTW, even if embedded, Lua is still a scripting language, it is used to script the host application... That's why I used the term "shell scripting" above, which is probably the one you thought about.

--
--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--
Philippe Lhoste (Paris -- France)
Professional programmer and amateur artist
http://Phi.Lho.free.fr
--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--=#=--

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Slashdot article: "Searching for the Best Scripting Language"

Eric Tetz-2
In reply to this post by Andre Costa-2
--- Andre Costa wrote:
> The criteria used are very subjective and most likely not
> entirely relevant to most of the people here.

No kidding. It's like asking, "what the best vehicle?" The question
is meaningless by itself. It needs to be, "what is the best vehicle
for purpose X?"

Lua beats Perl up and down the block when you need an *embedded*
scripting language, one that is easy to extend, one that is time
*and* space efficient, one that is particularly good at data
description and easy to read/learn by novice programmers. Perl is
none of these things.


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends.  Fun.  Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/ 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

Paul Smith-6
In reply to this post by Asko Kauppi-3
At 22:17 13/06/2004, Asko Kauppi wrote:

Having proper debugger support (not only API, but a _real_ debugger)
would have gained +10 points.

Imho, this is currently a very high priority lack for Lua newcomers.
People just are used to proper tools, and -face it- when was the last
time you wrote print('something') in a script just to see..?  ;)

Erm, I use 'print' (or equivalent) in my Perl, PHP and Lua programs. Having a 'real debugger' is all well and good, but you've got to get it into the same environment as your real script is used.

So, in Perl, PHP, most of the time I use these in web pages, so I'd somehow have to get Apache to call my debugger and not fall over whilst I'm stepping through the code..

With Lua, I'd have to, probably, compile the debugger into my application and have a GUI for it to step through code.

A 'real debugger' is fine for a standalone script, but much less usable for a script called from within another program, be it Apache (and mod_perl/mod_php) or my application calling Lua.


Paul				VPOP3 - Internet Email Server/Gateway
[hidden email]			http://www.pscs.co.uk/



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

Tom Spilman
> A 'real debugger' is fine for a standalone script, but much 
> less usable for a script called from within another program, 
> be it Apache (and
> mod_perl/mod_php) or my application calling Lua.

 I've been working on a Lua debugger on and off and have been thinking about
issue.  The debugger GUI itself uses Lua-RPC to communicate with the target
lua code so it can be anywhere.  The question for me was how to get the RPC
server running in the debugging target.  

 I'm thinking of providing multiple options by supplying code that can be
linked in, pre-compiled C libraries, and a dynamic C library that can be
connected via LoadLib.  I suspect that one of these three methods would work
for just about any situation.

  Tom

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] 
> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Paul Smith
> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 3:57 AM
> To: Lua list
> Subject: Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)
> 
> At 22:17 13/06/2004, Asko Kauppi wrote:
> 
> >Having proper debugger support (not only API, but a _real_ debugger) 
> >would have gained +10 points.
> >
> >Imho, this is currently a very high priority lack for Lua newcomers.
> >People just are used to proper tools, and -face it- when was 
> the last 
> >time you wrote print('something') in a script just to see..?  ;)
> 
> Erm, I use 'print' (or equivalent) in my Perl, PHP and Lua 
> programs. Having a 'real debugger' is all well and good, but 
> you've got to get it into the same environment as your real 
> script is used.
> 
> So, in Perl, PHP, most of the time I use these in web pages, 
> so I'd somehow have to get Apache to call my debugger and not 
> fall over whilst I'm stepping through the code..
> 
> With Lua, I'd have to, probably, compile the debugger into my 
> application and have a GUI for it to step through code.
> 
> A 'real debugger' is fine for a standalone script, but much 
> less usable for a script called from within another program, 
> be it Apache (and
> mod_perl/mod_php) or my application calling Lua.
> 
> 
> Paul				VPOP3 - Internet Email Server/Gateway
> [hidden email]			http://www.pscs.co.uk/
> 
> 
> 
> 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

John Paquin
>> so I'd somehow have to get Apache to call my debugger

I've been toying with the idea of writing a debugger entirely as a self contained executable, but then packaging it as a run time loadable library.

That way it could be loaded by a native application or by the Lua script itself.




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

Joshua Jensen
>  >> so I'd somehow have to get Apache to call my debugger
> 
> I've been toying with the idea of writing a debugger entirely 
> as a self contained executable, but then packaging it as a 
> run time loadable library.
> 
> That way it could be loaded by a native application or by the 
> Lua script itself.

You may look at LuaPlus's (http://luaplus.org) Remote Lua Debugger for some
hints as to how to implement a TCP/IP based debugger that doesn't modify the
underlying Lua state being debugged.

Josh


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

Asko Kauppi-3
In reply to this post by Tom Spilman

For me, this seems like the right approach (having separate host & client). Embedded world will love it, no doubt. :) Btw, LuaPlus already sports this approach, but the client is bound to be VisualC++/Windows based.

Could you use luaSocket for the communication? Many/most gadgets actually using Lua might be having TCP/IP connection as well, at least for the debugging phase.

What we need is a standard here. :)
-ak


14.6.2004 kello 18:31, Tom Spilman kirjoitti:

I've been working on a Lua debugger on and off and have been thinking about issue. The debugger GUI itself uses Lua-RPC to communicate with the target lua code so it can be anywhere. The question for me was how to get the RPC
server running in the debugging target.

I'm thinking of providing multiple options by supplying code that can be linked in, pre-compiled C libraries, and a dynamic C library that can be connected via LoadLib. I suspect that one of these three methods would work
for just about any situation.

  Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Paul Smith
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 3:57 AM
To: Lua list
Subject: Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

At 22:17 13/06/2004, Asko Kauppi wrote:

Having proper debugger support (not only API, but a _real_ debugger)
would have gained +10 points.

Imho, this is currently a very high priority lack for Lua newcomers.
People just are used to proper tools, and -face it- when was
the last
time you wrote print('something') in a script just to see..?  ;)

Erm, I use 'print' (or equivalent) in my Perl, PHP and Lua
programs. Having a 'real debugger' is all well and good, but
you've got to get it into the same environment as your real
script is used.

So, in Perl, PHP, most of the time I use these in web pages,
so I'd somehow have to get Apache to call my debugger and not
fall over whilst I'm stepping through the code..

With Lua, I'd have to, probably, compile the debugger into my
application and have a GUI for it to step through code.

A 'real debugger' is fine for a standalone script, but much
less usable for a script called from within another program,
be it Apache (and
mod_perl/mod_php) or my application calling Lua.


Paul				VPOP3 - Internet Email Server/Gateway
[hidden email]			http://www.pscs.co.uk/







Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

Tom Spilman
> Btw, LuaPlus already sports this approach, but the client is 
> bound to be 
> VisualC++/Windows based.

  I looked at LuaPlus, but it's a modified version of Lua and the client is
build with MFC.  I just didn't see any advantages for me to use it short of
the debugger.

  The debugger client I'm working on is written with WxWindows, so
technically it should be rather portable if need be.

> Could you use luaSocket for the communication?  Many/most 
> gadgets actually using Lua might be having TCP/IP connection 
> as well, at least for the debugging phase.

  I'm actually using Lua-RPC ( http://www.q12.org/lua/ ).

  Tom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] 
> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Asko Kauppi
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 6:00 AM
> To: Lua list
> Subject: Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)
> 
> 
> For me, this seems like the right approach (having separate 
> host & client).  Embedded world will love it, no doubt. :)  
> Btw, LuaPlus already sports this approach, but the client is 
> bound to be 
> VisualC++/Windows based.
> 
> Could you use luaSocket for the communication?  Many/most 
> gadgets actually using Lua might be having TCP/IP connection 
> as well, at least for the debugging phase.
> 
> What we need is a standard here. :)
> -ak
> 
> 
> 14.6.2004 kello 18:31, Tom Spilman kirjoitti:
> 
> >  I've been working on a Lua debugger on and off and have 
> been thinking 
> > about issue.  The debugger GUI itself uses Lua-RPC to 
> communicate with 
> > the target lua code so it can be anywhere.  The question for me was 
> > how to get the RPC server running in the debugging target.
> >
> >  I'm thinking of providing multiple options by supplying 
> code that can 
> > be linked in, pre-compiled C libraries, and a dynamic C 
> library that 
> > can be connected via LoadLib.  I suspect that one of these three 
> > methods would work for just about any situation.
> >
> >   Tom
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: [hidden email]
> >> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of 
> Paul Smith
> >> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 3:57 AM
> >> To: Lua list
> >> Subject: Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)
> >>
> >> At 22:17 13/06/2004, Asko Kauppi wrote:
> >>
> >>> Having proper debugger support (not only API, but a 
> _real_ debugger) 
> >>> would have gained +10 points.
> >>>
> >>> Imho, this is currently a very high priority lack for Lua 
> newcomers.
> >>> People just are used to proper tools, and -face it- when was
> >> the last
> >>> time you wrote print('something') in a script just to see..?  ;)
> >>
> >> Erm, I use 'print' (or equivalent) in my Perl, PHP and Lua 
> programs. 
> >> Having a 'real debugger' is all well and good, but you've 
> got to get 
> >> it into the same environment as your real script is used.
> >>
> >> So, in Perl, PHP, most of the time I use these in web 
> pages, so I'd 
> >> somehow have to get Apache to call my debugger and not fall over 
> >> whilst I'm stepping through the code..
> >>
> >> With Lua, I'd have to, probably, compile the debugger into my 
> >> application and have a GUI for it to step through code.
> >>
> >> A 'real debugger' is fine for a standalone script, but much less 
> >> usable for a script called from within another program, be 
> it Apache 
> >> (and
> >> mod_perl/mod_php) or my application calling Lua.
> >>
> >>
> >> Paul				VPOP3 - Internet Email 
> Server/Gateway
> >> [hidden email]			http://www.pscs.co.uk/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

Adam D. Moss
Tom Spilman wrote:
  I'm actually using Lua-RPC ( http://www.q12.org/lua/ ).

Do you find that it works with Lua 5?  Or are you using Lua 4?

--Adam
--
Adam D. Moss   . ,,^^   [hidden email]   http://www.foxbox.org/   co:3

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

Tom Spilman
> Do you find that it works with Lua 5?  Or are you using Lua 4?

 I ported it over to Lua5.  I still need to submit it back to Russ so he can
post it.

  Tom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] 
> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Adam D. Moss
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:30 PM
> To: Lua list
> Subject: Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)
> 
> Tom Spilman wrote:
> >   I'm actually using Lua-RPC ( http://www.q12.org/lua/ ).
> 
> Do you find that it works with Lua 5?  Or are you using Lua 4?
> 
> --Adam
> -- 
> Adam D. Moss   . ,,^^   [hidden email]   http://www.foxbox.org/   co:3
> 
> 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

Andre Carregal
In reply to this post by Asko Kauppi-3
Hi,

Another option would be using LuaXMLRPC/SOAP and Xavante. In fact this is
our initial plan for the Kepler remote debugger.

Andre Carregal

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[[hidden email] Behalf Of Tom Spilman
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 2:38 PM
To: 'Lua list'
Subject: RE: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)



> Do you find that it works with Lua 5?  Or are you using Lua 4?

 I ported it over to Lua5.  I still need to submit it back to Russ so he can
post it.

  Tom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Adam D. Moss
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:30 PM
> To: Lua list
> Subject: Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)
>
> Tom Spilman wrote:
> >   I'm actually using Lua-RPC ( http://www.q12.org/lua/ ).
>
> Do you find that it works with Lua 5?  Or are you using Lua 4?
>
> --Adam
> --
> Adam D. Moss   . ,,^^   [hidden email]   http://www.foxbox.org/   co:3
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

Tom Spilman
> Another option would be using LuaXMLRPC/SOAP and Xavante. In 
> fact this is our initial plan for the Kepler remote debugger.

 My initial impression is that it is more complex than needed, but I need to
look closer at it.  Also it seems to me that the debugger server and client
would be best implemented in C for performance and to keep the debugger from
stepping into itself.

  Tom


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email] 
> [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of 
> Andre Carregal
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 1:57 PM
> To: 'Lua list'
> Subject: RE: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Another option would be using LuaXMLRPC/SOAP and Xavante. In 
> fact this is our initial plan for the Kepler remote debugger.
> 
> Andre Carregal
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [hidden email]
> [[hidden email] Behalf Of Tom Spilman
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 2:38 PM
> To: 'Lua list'
> Subject: RE: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)
> 
> 
> 
> > Do you find that it works with Lua 5?  Or are you using Lua 4?
> 
>  I ported it over to Lua5.  I still need to submit it back to 
> Russ so he can post it.
> 
>   Tom
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [hidden email]
> > [[hidden email]] On Behalf Of 
> Adam D. Moss
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 12:30 PM
> > To: Lua list
> > Subject: Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)
> >
> > Tom Spilman wrote:
> > >   I'm actually using Lua-RPC ( http://www.q12.org/lua/ ).
> >
> > Do you find that it works with Lua 5?  Or are you using Lua 4?
> >
> > --Adam
> > --
> > Adam D. Moss   . ,,^^   [hidden email]   
> http://www.foxbox.org/   co:3
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

Andre Carregal
In reply to this post by Asko Kauppi-3
Good points indeed!

In a perfect world, one could just require "remdebug" in the remote
application and use the debugger locally through an IDE or command line.

The RemDebug server could implement the reflexive Debug interface through a
TCP connection and could be used with a host like Xavante to debug CGILua
scripts for example. It would also have to offer some API to communicate
with the remote application and be notified of program starts/stops/etc.

Andre Carregal





-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[[hidden email] Behalf Of Tom Spilman
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:40 PM
To: 'Lua list'
Subject: RE: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)



> Another option would be using LuaXMLRPC/SOAP and Xavante. In
> fact this is our initial plan for the Kepler remote debugger.

 My initial impression is that it is more complex than needed, but I need to
look closer at it.  Also it seems to me that the debugger server and client
would be best implemented in C for performance and to keep the debugger from
stepping into itself.

  Tom


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)

Asko Kauppi-3

Nice to see you interested in this. Now, I only hope it'll be fire too, and not just smoke.. ;)

In order to do that, how about listing the people who'd really like to "carry their straws" to this, and keep their discussion separate? I mean something like luaCheia, but usable with any Lua distro. Should we start a separate list (& project) for this?

Here's my goals for the (remote) debugger:
	- lightwight (not slowing things down _too_ much)..
- easily enablable(?)/disablable (gosh, what words!!) - I like your 'require' approach :) - server & protocol standard, clients multiple implementations (cmdline, UI, VC++ extension..)
	- clients implemented (preferably) in Lua
	- crafted in the spirit of Lua (goes without saying, right..?)=
	- ..

What's the Lua authors' standpoint (Roberto et.al) regarding this?

-ak


17.6.2004 kello 22:20, Andre Carregal kirjoitti:

 Good points indeed!

In a perfect world, one could just require "remdebug" in the remote
application and use the debugger locally through an IDE or command line.

The RemDebug server could implement the reflexive Debug interface through a TCP connection and could be used with a host like Xavante to debug CGILua scripts for example. It would also have to offer some API to communicate with the remote application and be notified of program starts/stops/etc.

Andre Carregal





-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email]
[[hidden email] Behalf Of Tom Spilman
Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 5:40 PM
To: 'Lua list'
Subject: RE: Debugger support (Re: Slashdot article)



Another option would be using LuaXMLRPC/SOAP and Xavante. In
fact this is our initial plan for the Kepler remote debugger.

My initial impression is that it is more complex than needed, but I need to look closer at it. Also it seems to me that the debugger server and client would be best implemented in C for performance and to keep the debugger from
stepping into itself.

  Tom



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Optimizations during compilation

Dan East
  Will the compiler optimize things like this:

io.write(20/4)

  So the division is not carried out every time that statement is
executed?

  Thanks.

  Dan East


1234 ... 6