Lua is faster than Fortran???

[sturlamolden]

On 4 Jul, 06:15, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
cybersource.com.au> wrote:

> "Need" is a bit strong. There are plenty of applications where if your
> code takes 0.1 millisecond to run instead of 0.001, you won't even
> notice. Or applications that are limited by the speed of I/O rather than
> the CPU.

> But I'm nitpicking... this is a nice result, the Lua people should be
> proud, and I certainly wouldn't say no to a faster Python :)

Need might be too strong, sorry. I'm not a native speaker of
English :)

Don't read this as a complaint about Python being too slow. I don't
care about milliseconds either. But I do care about libraries like
Python's standard library, wxPython, NumPy, and matplotlib. And when I
need C, C++ or Fortran I know where to fint it. Nobody in the
scientific community would be sad if Python was so fast that no C or
Fortran would have to be written. And I am sure Google and many other
users of Python would not mind either. And this is kind of a proof
that it can be. Considering that Lua is to Python what C is to C++
(more or less), it means that it is possible to make Python run very
fast as well.

Yes the LuaJIT team should be proud. Making a scripting language run
faster than Fortran on CPU-bound work is a superhuman result.