Birbla

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • A technical write‑up about the difficulties of compiling Lua to native code, based on my experience developing clx
    by _samt_
  • If it has to go through compilation process to make it native, doesn't that defeat the purpose of Lua? I mean, why not just use the same language of the host application, in other words, just another function/module of that app.
    by wiradikusuma
  • > It also means that libraries written in C or C++ don't need to be translated into some special Lua-specific implementation. They can remain native libraries, with a thin clx binding layer exposing the functionality to Lua.

    This is already true of upstream Lua implementations. It is very easy to write thin Lua binding layers to C libraries.

    That is the entire point of Lua. It’s easy to call Lua from native code, and it’s easy to call native code back from Lua, so you can have call stacks that seamlessly interweave Lua and native code.

    I’m very skeptical of the idea that this can unlock improvements in performance or size. We already have LuaJIT which is plenty fast, and PUC-Lua which is so small, it runs on MCUs.

    by drdexebtjl
  • This is of interest to me, but I have no idea why you'd set `height: 720px`. I had to turn that off to make it readable.
    by Philpax

Explore Birbla archives