> Screaming about using Lua instead is just nonresponsive.
The point of those comments is not to hype Lua, it's to show what a JIT can do.
The idea is that a python JIT could be just as good as Lua for the parts that aren't suited to numba.
> Lua is absolutely not faster than numba, nor will it ever be (absent a numba-like translation layer) and repeatedly trying to argue so is very much missing the point.
Nobody is arguing that. People are agreeing that numba is fast, but they also want other non-number-crunching things to be fast. It's "yes, and". They're not missing the numba point, they're agreeing and you're missing the additional point they're responding with.
The point of those comments is not to hype Lua, it's to show what a JIT can do.
The idea is that a python JIT could be just as good as Lua for the parts that aren't suited to numba.
> Lua is absolutely not faster than numba, nor will it ever be (absent a numba-like translation layer) and repeatedly trying to argue so is very much missing the point.
Nobody is arguing that. People are agreeing that numba is fast, but they also want other non-number-crunching things to be fast. It's "yes, and". They're not missing the numba point, they're agreeing and you're missing the additional point they're responding with.