Next gen Amiga

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Gorf

ok, if Lua is already bloat for you ... than we have VERY different definitions of bloat.
And probably of what a OS should be capable of and what not ... and this is while I would consider myself in favor of minimalistic solutions (e.g. like Lua)

You can't deny that Lua is much slower than native execution, especially on systems without FPU.

Originally Posted by Gorf

You mean old DOS? ok
But Windows Powershell is far more capable than ADOS and Arexx combined.
(don't like it either, but still true)

Looks too complicated (a shell script should be simple, easy to read text and not full object-oriented program), and still unable to send commands to programs like Arexx does.

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by meynaf

It is simple enough so that you'll notice something relatively soon.

Sure, but on Windows it almost never happens in the first place.

Originally Posted by meynaf

With Windows it's not memory that will make the system more reliable - it's all saved on disk.

Indeed. AOS isn't crap, but I find the Windows end user experience to be mostly better than that of AOS.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Btw. I'm still wondering why my 8.1 sometimes shows several winlogon.exe/wininit.exe in task lists while there's a single user (and keeps doing so even if machine is switched off then on, only "reboot" fixes it).

It's just Windows nonsense.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Things such as CCleaner do help, obviously. Nevertheless the Amiga does not need regular upkeep.

I don't actually use those. I simply turn off services I don't need (including automatic updates crap, with Win10Pro you can turn that off COMPLETELY), and I manage which programs get run at startup.

Originally Posted by meynaf

What i meant is that it's like cpu power and memory - it gets wasted.

Screen space wastage is cause by the user, CPU wastage is caused by the software. It all comes down to how you want to work.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Asm optimizing isn't just "playing compiler" ; it also involves changing data layouts, reuse data rather than recompute it, etc. As I said, it's not wholly the compiler's fault.

That applies to other languages as well. Changing an algorithm by a better one isn't language level optimization.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Try with Lua on your A1200 if you don't believe me.

I most certainly will.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Of course. But then you really wanted to (or should stop coding !).

Or learn 2 code

Originally Posted by meynaf

There's probably a part for both.

In the peecee world I somehow wouldn't be surprised.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Lua is programming language with functions, similar to Basic. It has nothing to do with a shell script.

No, but it can function as such and include Arexx functionality at the same time (if you add it).

Originally Posted by meynaf

More powerful than what ? Windows shell inherits from old msdos so just any other shell is better.

The script language.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Why ? Your so-called "modern" OSes still lack some generic way to send commands to programs.

That sadly does seems to be the case, unless you count CLI pipes...

Originally Posted by meynaf

And so you can't change the icon for a particular file.

Sure you can. WinXP already allows that.

Originally Posted by meynaf

There are tool managers for that.

Which you have to add, because Workbench doesn't offer that functionalty out of the box.

Originally Posted by meynaf

You could use prefixes rather than suffixes.

That's not practical, because everthing uses suffixes.

Originally Posted by meynaf

If you want shortcuts to files on WB, you can just put them on the WB itself. Simple ".backdrop" files will then make them permanently there.

That's not a shortcut.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Note that AOS also allows softlinks.

Yes, and while they work great, Workbench doesn't offer an option to make them.

Originally Posted by meynaf

But one day you'll end up with two or more file types ending with same extension and you'll be real sorry.

Doesn't happen often, and I know what the file I double click is, so not a big deal.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Why having these ? Menus are as easy to use and we have them (and they don't take the space icons would !).

Menus are nice, but having both is better.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Still, I kinda like it.

It's not functionalty. It's similar to eye candy.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Yeah, there is no annoying automatic repositioning when you want to move an icon in a specific place. Too bad, eh ?

Not a problem for me, because I want everything aligned.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Not only because it makes disassembling and decoding a pain, but also you can't use these at the same time.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by meynaf

You can't deny that Lua is much slower than native execution, especially on systems without FPU.

Everything that's interpreted is much slower, including Amiga dos scripts and Arexx. Also, Lua can be configured to use integers instead of floating point, and Lua 5.3 allows using both (if you set a variable to an integer value it becomes an int, when you set it to a float value it becomes a double).

In the end, I wouldn't on bit surprised if the Lua VM is a good bit faster than Amiga dos scripts and Arexx.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by meynaf

You can't deny that Lua is much slower than native execution, especially on systems without FPU.

You can not deny that Lua is a scripting language.
You are comparing apples and oranges.
Arexx is also much slower than native.

Looks too complicated (a shell script should be simple, easy to read text and not full object-oriented program),

As said I do not like it, but it is powerful. I do not mind OO.

and still unable to send commands to programs like Arexx does.

Of course it can, the program just needs to support that - same as with Arexx.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Thorham

Sure, but on Windows it almost never happens in the first place.

You can not know for sure. Strange things happen sometimes.

Originally Posted by Thorham

Screen space wastage is cause by the user, CPU wastage is caused by the software. It all comes down to how you want to work.

Screen space wastage can also be caused by poorly designed UI.

Originally Posted by Thorham

That applies to other languages as well. Changing an algorithm by a better one isn't language level optimization.

Changing how data is stored isn't changing the algorithm.

Originally Posted by Thorham

No, but it can function as such and include Arexx functionality at the same time (if you add it).

Still looks overkill to me.

Originally Posted by Thorham

Sure you can. WinXP already allows that.

And where is the icon stored then ?

Originally Posted by Thorham

Which you have to add, because Workbench doesn't offer that functionalty out of the box.

But hypothetic future WB versions could. And again, once configured, it's the same for all your machines (unlike windows).

Originally Posted by Thorham

That's not practical, because everthing uses suffixes.

Not on Amiga, no.

Originally Posted by Thorham

That's not a shortcut.

That doesn't need to be one (in the windows sense of it).

Originally Posted by Thorham

Yes, and while they work great, Workbench doesn't offer an option to make them.

Probably too rarely used for this...

Originally Posted by Thorham

Doesn't happen often, and I know what the file I double click is, so not a big deal.

Yes you know, but the machine does not, and you can't double click both file types with same extension and expect them to both work this way.

Originally Posted by Thorham

Menus are nice, but having both is better.

That does not enhance end user experience dramatically...

Originally Posted by Thorham

It's not functionalty. It's similar to eye candy.

Not that much, if used properly. Programs that are often used can have bigger icons than ones that are rarely used. Makes running them a smoother experience.

Originally Posted by Thorham

Not a problem for me, because I want everything aligned.

Then use names only, not icons. They will be aligned.
Besides, they will be aligned but not necessarily in the order you want. In WB you can put any icon anywhere in a directory and expect it to remain there if you save it. In windows, only icons in the desktop are located where you place them.

Originally Posted by Thorham

Everything that's interpreted is much slower, including Amiga dos scripts and Arexx. Also, Lua can be configured to use integers instead of floating point, and Lua 5.3 allows using both (if you set a variable to an integer value it becomes an int, when you set it to a float value it becomes a double).

Isn't all this a little bit complicated for just a shell scripting system ?

Originally Posted by Thorham

In the end, I wouldn't on bit surprised if the Lua VM is a good bit faster than Amiga dos scripts and Arexx.

And I wouldn't be surprised that by the time it takes to load and run the Lua VM, the normal script has already ended

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Gorf

You can not deny that Lua is a scripting language.

It is not designed to replace ordinary shell scripts.

Originally Posted by Gorf

You are comparing apples and oranges.

It's not me doing that ! Lua is full programming language, not shell script !

Originally Posted by Gorf

Arexx is also much slower than native.

It does not need to be fast. It just sends commands in public ports.
It is not truly a programming language. Lua is.

Originally Posted by Gorf

As said I do not like it, but it is powerful. I do not mind OO.

Seems "feature creep" rather than "powerful". Yet a test such as suggested below could tell more.

Originally Posted by Gorf

Of course it can, the program just needs to support that - same as with Arexx.

Ok. Let's say i want to send commands to some audio player, like i can easily do with Delitracker. What program to choose and how to do this ?

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by meynaf

You can not know for sure. Strange things happen sometimes.

Certainly. Windows undoubtedly has bugs and design flaws.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Screen space wastage can also be caused by poorly designed UI.

Of course, but that's still a software problem.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Changing how data is stored isn't changing the algorithm.

Yes, but didn't you change the algorithm too?

Originally Posted by meynaf

Still looks overkill to me.

It would be a combination of shell script language and Arexx.

Originally Posted by meynaf

And where is the icon stored then ?

I don't have a single clue But you can still change the icons, including folder icons.

Originally Posted by meynaf

But hypothetic future WB versions could.

Hypothetical future anything can add anything.

Originally Posted by meynaf

And again, once configured, it's the same for all your machines (unlike windows).

You can't setup Windows to be the same across different machines?

Originally Posted by meynaf

That doesn't need to be one (in the windows sense of it).

It's not needed, but it would be nice.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Probably too rarely used for this...

Indeed, but that might be because WB can't make them for this purpose.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Yes you know, but the machine does not, and you can't double click both file types with same extension and expect them to both work this way.

While true, still not a big deal.

Originally Posted by meynaf

That does not enhance end user experience dramatically...

Not dramatically, but it's still nice to have. Saves some extra clicking.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Not that much, if used properly. Programs that are often used can have bigger icons than ones that are rarely used. Makes running them a smoother experience.

That's really a matter of personal taste.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Then use names only, not icons. They will be aligned.

Never gonna happen

Originally Posted by meynaf

Besides, they will be aligned but not necessarily in the order you want. In WB you can put any icon anywhere in a directory and expect it to remain there if you save it. In windows, only icons in the desktop are located where you place them.

While true, I don't miss that feature in Explorer.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Isn't all this a little bit complicated for just a shell scripting system ?

Doesn't seem complicated to me. It's more about having a powerful script language that could also be used for batch processing and Arexx stuff. You can even expose system calls to Lua.

Originally Posted by meynaf

And I wouldn't be surprised that by the time it takes to load and run the Lua VM, the normal script has already ended

If it keeps reloading the whole thing, then yes (depending on the script of course). Then again, as a simple replacement it's quite pointless.

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Thorham

Yes, but didn't you change the algorithm too?

Not really. Made less passes to process the map, removed unneeded changes, used auto-incremented pointers rather than indexes, but the basis is still the same.

Originally Posted by Thorham

It would be a combination of shell script language and Arexx.

Then just use Arexx. It's perfectly able to run cli commands.

Originally Posted by Thorham

I don't have a single clue But you can still change the icons, including folder icons.

So there are kind of equivalent of .info files - just hidden instead of being user accessible. Not exactly a better way !

Originally Posted by Thorham

Hypothetical future anything can add anything.

Indeed. But... isn't this the whole point of this thread ?

Originally Posted by Thorham

You can't setup Windows to be the same across different machines?

You can, but for this you have to repeat the same configuration changes over and over (instead of just transferring a few config files).

Originally Posted by Thorham

It's not needed, but it would be nice.

That's true.

Originally Posted by Thorham

Indeed, but that might be because WB can't make them for this purpose.

I dunno.

Originally Posted by Thorham

While true, still not a big deal.

Not having file type recognition by extension isn't a big deal either, so we're equal here

Originally Posted by Thorham

Not dramatically, but it's still nice to have. Saves some extra clicking.

Keyboard shortcuts may be better to save clicking.

Originally Posted by Thorham

That's really a matter of personal taste.

That's why both options should be available.

Originally Posted by Thorham

Never gonna happen

Originally Posted by Thorham

While true, I don't miss that feature in Explorer.

And i don't miss the grid thing. Seems we just have a different way of doing

Originally Posted by Thorham

Doesn't seem complicated to me. It's more about having a powerful script language that could also be used for batch processing and Arexx stuff. You can even expose system calls to Lua.

Can Lua directly execute a single command you enter in a window ?
Because if it needs a file, it simply can't replace the shell !

Originally Posted by Thorham

If it keeps reloading the whole thing, then yes (depending on the script of course). Then again, as a simple replacement it's quite pointless.

I wonder how a startup-sequence would look like in lua. I frankly doubt it could execute faster...

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by meynaf

Not really. Made less passes to process the map, removed unneeded changes, used auto-incremented pointers rather than indexes, but the basis is still the same.

Then they really did write it in a crappy way.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Then just use Arexx. It's perfectly able to run cli commands.

I don't like Arexx

Originally Posted by meynaf

So there are kind of equivalent of .info files - just hidden instead of being user accessible. Not exactly a better way !

Yeah, maybe. Windows certainly doesn't do everything better from a technical perspective.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Indeed. But... isn't this the whole point of this thread ?

Yes, but this was about out of the box.

Originally Posted by meynaf

You can, but for this you have to repeat the same configuration changes over and over (instead of just transferring a few config files).

Always thought that could be automated somehow.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Not having file type recognition by extension isn't a big deal either, so we're equal here

Better to have both. Extensions allow nice sorting, while also acting as a filter for binary checking.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Keyboard shortcuts may be better to save clicking.

Not when you're feeling lazy

Originally Posted by meynaf

That's why both options should be available.

Yes, it seems like it's always one or the other for no good reason.

Originally Posted by meynaf

And i don't miss the grid thing. Seems we just have a different way of doing

Indeed.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Can Lua directly execute a single command you enter in a window ? Because if it needs a file, it simply can't replace the shell !

Yes, it comes with a standalone interpreter that allows typing commands in the CLI (simple standard console IO).

Originally Posted by meynaf

I wonder how a startup-sequence would look like in lua. I frankly doubt it could execute faster...

For this kind of thing it's not too useful. You're right in that it would be overkill.

As I said, you can expose OS calls and write whole GUI based programs with the thing. On Amiga I use it mainly as a programmable calculator with 384 bit floats. You can also use it as a memory viewer and a whatever. So yes, overkill indeed.

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by meynaf

It (Lua) is not designed to replace ordinary shell scripts.

Nor is AREXX or whatever - your comparison makes no sense here.

It's not me doing that ! Lua is full programming language, not shell script !
It (AREXX) does not need to be fast. It just sends commands in public ports.
It is not truly a programming language. Lua is.

But Lua is not used as a full blown programming language.
AREXX is also turing-complete, which makes it a "full programming language".

Lua is mainly used to "script" other programs - to remote control them.
So it is the same use case as AROS.
Only the method of doing so differs in most cases - but you could also make Lua talk to AREXX- or message-ports.

(MS powershell) Seems "feature creep" rather than "powerful". Yet a test such as suggested below could tell more.

Ok. Let's say i want to send commands to some audio player, like i can easily do with Delitracker. What program to choose and how to do this ?

For Steinberg's Wavelab you can use Powershell:
https://www.steinberg.net/forums/vie...46951&start=25

for Renoise probably Lua works best:
https://github.com/renoise/xrnx

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by Gorf

But Lua is not used as a full blown programming language.

Lua is a general purpose scripting language.

Originally Posted by Gorf

to remote control them.

Lua is usually embedded in other programs.

[jPV]

Originally Posted by Gorf

but you could also make Lua talk to AREXX- or message-ports.

MorphOS has a nice Amiga style integration of Lua with ARexx support commands. I've rewritten many of my ARexx scripts to Lua scripts, and also written new scripts in both Lua and Arexx versions.

Here's more information about MorphOS' Lua implementation:
https://library.morph.zone/Getting_Started_with_Lua

And if anyone is interested, here are many scripts I've written in both scripting languages:
http://jpv.wmhost.com/jpv_software/

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Thorham

Then they really did write it in a crappy way.

But without noticing, because it's so easy to write crap in compiled languages.

Originally Posted by Thorham

I don't like Arexx

I fail to see why.

Originally Posted by Thorham

Yes, but this was about out of the box.

You can't expect an OS which has hardly seen an update in 20 years (and runs on underpowered hardware) to have all the bells and whistles of current OSes.
However it can be extended in a much easier way, and by its users. THAT is a great advantage windows will never have.

Originally Posted by Thorham

Always thought that could be automated somehow.

You can extract a few registry keys if you know what you're doing, but i'm afraid it'll never be up to the point you only have to transfer a few files.

Originally Posted by Thorham

Better to have both. Extensions allow nice sorting, while also acting as a filter for binary checking.

It's sure better to have several options.

Originally Posted by Thorham

Yes, it comes with a standalone interpreter that allows typing commands in the CLI (simple standard console IO).

Perhaps i should give it another go then. But i have no pointers how to do that on the miggy (and no good reference doc either). My only experience is a little scripting for Freeciv customization (and i admit it wasn't exactly something i liked !).

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Gorf

Nor is AREXX or whatever - your comparison makes no sense here.

It's not me who had the quite senseless idea to use it as shell replacement.

Originally Posted by Gorf

But Lua is not used as a full blown programming language.
AREXX is also turing-complete, which makes it a "full programming language".

Lua is mainly used to "script" other programs - to remote control them.
So it is the same use case as AROS.
Only the method of doing so differs in most cases - but you could also make Lua talk to AREXX- or message-ports.

Yes but like Thorham said, lua is embedded in the programs it controls.
You can't simply have your startup-sequence rewritten in lua.
And while arexx can't do this either, at least you can send shell commands directly with "address command".

Wondering also what the minimum config is for lua. I doubt it'll perform so well on unexpanded A500, will it ?

Originally Posted by Gorf

For Steinberg's Wavelab you can use Powershell:
https://www.steinberg.net/forums/vie...46951&start=25

for Renoise probably Lua works best:
https://github.com/renoise/xrnx

Still not an easy to test, simple example like i could have done with arexx.
I was more expecting simple download link, and simple command to type, rather than just an imprecise forum thread or some github link.
When something is simple to use, it's simple to explain.

[jPV]

Originally Posted by meynaf

Yes but like Thorham said, lua is embedded in the programs it controls.

Depends how it's implemented, see the MorphOS implementation for example:
https://library.morph.zone/Getting_Started_with_Lua

And while arexx can't do this either, at least you can send shell commands directly with "address command".

As can be done with Lua too. In MorphOS implementation you can do address("COMMAND") which is equivalent to ARexx, or in all Lua implementations with os.execute()

Wondering also what the minimum config is for lua. I doubt it'll perform so well on unexpanded A500, will it ?

It is pretty lightweight, might run on it too For example file size of lua.library in MorphOS is 59k and with all standard modules under 100k still, so at least fits on a floppy just fine

[Gorf]

Originally Posted by meynaf

It's not me who had the quite senseless idea to use it as shell replacement.

Actually nobody had this idea.

Yes but like Thorham said, lua is embedded in the programs it controls.

Or not, like in MorphOS.

You can't simply have your startup-sequence rewritten in lua.

Why would you want that?
Would you like to rewrite it in AREXX or C or Assembler?
Nobody suggested such a thing in the first place.

And while arexx can't do this either, at least you can send shell commands directly with "address command".

you can implement this functionality in any script-language.
I bet Lua on MorphOS can already do that.

Wondering also what the minimum config is for lua. I doubt it'll perform so well on unexpanded A500, will it ?

A non-jit version surly will. Have a look at eLua
http://www.eluaproject.net

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by jPV

It is pretty lightweight, might run on it too For example file size of lua.library in MorphOS is 59k and with all standard libraries under 100k still, so at least fits on a floppy just fine

So it's approx. 3 times arexx, which i already find too big for what it does (rexxsyslib.library is 33k on 3.0 and contains most of the bulk).

[meynaf]

Originally Posted by Gorf

Actually nobody had this idea.

Seems i misinterpreted. But then, enough of this.

[Gorf]

I did some digging and found something interesting.
I was thinking the Transmeta CPUs were the last approach of doing things like I proposed earlier in this thread (here).

I turnes out that Nvidia Tegra is doing quite the same - still today!
These CPUs are just mimicking an ARM-CPU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Denver

"Denver's binary translation layer runs in software, at a lower level than the operating system, and stores commonly accessed, already optimized code sequences in a 128 MB cache stored in main memory"

ARM code is translated either by a hardware translator or through software emulation to an instruction set that is internal to Project Denver. ARM instructions can be reordered, removed if they do not contribute to the end result, or otherwise optimized if software emulation is used.

So this is very very close to what I suggested and planing to test on an CPU+FPGA-Hybrid.

not so stupid after all

[Thorham]

Originally Posted by meynaf

But without noticing, because it's so easy to write crap in compiled languages.

Perhaps, but if it was written in C, they should've done a better job.

Originally Posted by meynaf

I fail to see why.

Seems so old fashioned, end not in a good way.

Originally Posted by meynaf

However it can be extended in a much easier way, and by its users. THAT is a great advantage windows will never have.

That's probably true.

Originally Posted by meynaf

You can extract a few registry keys if you know what you're doing, but i'm afraid it'll never be up to the point you only have to transfer a few files.

I always wondered why you can't just copy files. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Really weird.

Originally Posted by meynaf

Perhaps i should give it another go then. But i have no pointers how to do that on the miggy

What do you mean exactly?

Originally Posted by meynaf

and no good reference doc either

The official decs are reasonable: https://www.lua.org/manual/5.3/

Originally Posted by meynaf

So it's approx. 3 times arexx, which i already find too big for what it does (rexxsyslib.library is 33k on 3.0 and contains most of the bulk).

Lua source is ~20KLOC from what I've read. Not exactly huge.

Originally Posted by Gorf

Actually nobody had this idea.

I did for some bizarre reason

[Gorf]

Ah - I was reading your text as „should be able to use“ and not as „replace it with lua“ ... but i guess it is enough said already about lua