lua

Since my latest announcement of the Lua workshop, I received a couple of emails asking why I discourage the use of Lua.

Actually, I already wrote out many of the things I dislike about Lua. I won't come back on this technical issues here, but since Lua 5.2 is not yet released (it's still at alpha stage), they are still relevant nowadays.

Stack based API is harder

The ease of integration of Lua into a C program is one of the point of Lua. They claim it's very easy to integrate Lua into your C application, because it does not use pointer, nor reference counting, nor anything that requires a minimum amount of skills to be used.

It uses a virtual stack based approach. You push or pop things on a stack, and refers to them using a relative or absolute index.

In order to people who never wrote Lua code to understand, here's a quick example on how this work. The L pointer is a Lua environment.

/* Create a table on the stack: index 1 */
lua_newtable(L);
/* Push a string on the stack: index 2 */
lua_pushstring(L, "hello");
/* Push a number on the stack: index 3 */
lua_pushnumber(L, 123);
/* Set newtable["hello"] = 123 */
lua_settable(L, -3);


You first push a table (in Lua, a table is almost equivalent to what you'd call a hash table in other language), then push the key, the value, and do the assignment operation. In the settable, we use -3 as index, meaning the "3rd item on the stack counting from top". We could also have written lua_settable(L, 1), since the table is also the first item on the stack from the bottom.

So far, so good.

Problems arise when you do more complicated stuff. My previous example is what you would typically find in a tutorial, but of course, real life is different, and usually more complex. If you cut the things in different parts, it can start to be more complicated.

Let's take a look at the following:

/* Create a table on the stack: index 1 */
lua_newtable(L);
/* Push a string on the stack: index 2 */
lua_pushstring(L, "hello");
/* Push a number on the stack: index 3 */
lua_pushnumbe(L, mycomputingfunction());
/* Set newtable["hello"] = 123 */
lua_settable(L, -3);


Here, we do exactly the same thing, but we do not push 123 directly: we compute it.

And here's the trick: if your computing function is also using the Lua stack, things can become very messy. As long as your computing function use the stack cleanly by pushing and poping all its item, and returning the stack in the same state it was before, you're safe. The problem is that in a complex program, you also write bugs. You do not chose to, but you do. And sometimes, you forget to pop one of the item you fetched from a table.

Imagine that mycomputingfunction is:

int
mycomputingfunctiong(void)
{
/* Just push the table we want to fetch
the number from on the stack */
pushatableonstack(L);
lua_pushstring(L, "mykey");
lua_gettable(L, -2);
return lua_tonumber(L, -1);
}


This function works perfectly. It pushes a table, then a key ("mykey"), then fetches mytable["mykey"] and pops the key (lua_gettable does push value/pop key itself), and then returns the numeric value of the last item (the fetched one) of the stack.

However, this function has a bug: it does not pop the table! This does not prevent the function to work. It does not raise a segmentation fault. It does not show any problem under gdb. It does not show any leak under Valgrind. It does now show any problem under any standard C debugging tool.

But when you'll start using it, your program will start to do weird things, and you'll have to spend a huge amount of time debugging it manually, dumping the stack content at each step of your program to watch out what's wrong.

Another bad thing, that can happen, is some code poping accidentally an item from the stack, or worst, from an empty stack. This does not raise any error on the Lua side, but will break your program in very unfunny way.

Even if I've been very meticulous writing awesome, but we hit that problem regularly.

The easiest workaround is to use lua_settop(L, 0) to reset the stack to 0 element. Doing this regularly (like after each program event or treatment) can remove left-over items and avoid the never ending stack grow you may experience if your left-over items continue to pile up. Did I tell you I dislike work-around?

You could also use lua_call(), which would avoid such an error, but this would require a huge amount of indirection, and would make write more (useless) code.

This kind of problem does not exists with pointer based API. If you screw things up, the problem will cause a segmentation fault or leak memory, or cause things you can (easily) debug with standard tools like gdb or Valgrind.

No reference counting is a pain in the ass

Userdata objects are variable Lua size objects embedding a C struct you define. It's the equivalent of an object in object oriented language.

Lua does not provide any reference counting for the userdata objects. That means you can push this objects on the stack, use them, but they cannot directly reference each others. If you have a "car" userdata and a "wheel" one, the car cannot hold directly a reference to the wheel. This is not possible because userdata are allocated and garbage collected by Lua, and there's no way to increase the reference counting yourself.

So the common hack is to store the wheel into a table as a value, and store the table index as an integer into the car data structure.

This obviously makes memory leaks tracking harder, add huge level of reference indirection in usage (still more code), and does not make the whole process less error prone (at least in my opinion).

No paradigm makes you lose time

Lua is proud to come with no paradigm and to provide metatables. I already showed 3 years ago that it has big flaws.

To me, this ain't no good. Lua is not functional, nor it is object oriented.

Most people, including me, want one of this paradigm, or any else. Plain old imperative is not enough.

So you'll start to build more, or to use something like LOOP, which implements an object model. You'll implement your paradigm. I say life is too short to (re)write a paradigm.

In awesome we wanted to have an object oriented approach (this is kind of typical in such a graphical application context), so we tried to build one. To me, this started to be a show stopper when I realized that I've ended writing Python object model into Lua while developing awesome (which aims to be a window manager, not a language). This is one of the reason I stopped hacking on Lua things.

I liked Python object model and wanted to have it in Lua, and spending time rewriting Python is just not worth it. I probably should have chose Python, not Lua. YMMV.

Embedding may not be a good choice

This is not Lua related, but I want to mention it. Googling for "embedding vs extending" will probably tell you more about why you should double check that you really need to embed Lua rather than to extend it.

Being small is not an excuse

One common argument to choose Lua is that it has a small footprint. Yeah, that's true, but that's useless. Bummer! When I program, I don't have any resource usage pressure. People who have such pressure are either paranoids or playing in the world of embedded computers. This is also a no more existing conception since quad core processors equiped phones are coming into the market. I'm rather confident that what we used to call embedded devices are just dead and are now plain computers. But as usual, YMMV.

So start to forget about it, run in your underpants and yelling "yay we killed that shit!", and then use real computers stuff. :-)

Even if benchmarks show how Lua is damn fast, remember what a benchmark proves: that you can do useless things very fast.

Too few extension modules

This is not directly Lua's fault, but there's too few extension modules for Lua. The community is quite small compared to other big languages' ones.

So think twice

before you choose Lua (or any other language). My recommendations these days would be not to embed, but to extend. If you really have no choice and need to embed a language into your application, GNU Guile is probably worth considering, because it's a Scheme and therefore a functional language :-), and because it can provides also different languages.

Including Lua.