Source: erlang-luerl
Maintainer: Ejabberd Packaging Team <ejabberd@packages.debian.org>
Uploaders: Philipp Huebner <debalance@debian.org>
Section: libs
Priority: optional
Build-Depends: debhelper (>= 11~),
               dh-rebar,
               erlang-base,
               erlang-crypto,
               erlang-eunit,
               erlang-parsetools,
               erlang-syntax-tools
Standards-Version: 4.1.4
Vcs-Browser: https://salsa.debian.org/ejabberd-packaging-team/erlang-luerl
Vcs-Git: https://salsa.debian.org/ejabberd-packaging-team/erlang-luerl.git
Homepage: https://github.com/rvirding/luerl

Package: erlang-luerl
Architecture: any
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends},
         ${misc:Depends},
         erlang-base | ${erlang-abi:Depends},
         ${erlang:Depends}
Description: implementation of Lua in Erlang
 An experimental implementation of Lua 5.2 written solely in pure Erlang
 .
 When to use Luerl:
 .
 Fast Language Switch: Luerl should allow you to switch between Erlang and Lua
 incredibly fast, introducing a way to use very small bits of logic programmed
 in Lua, inside an Erlang application, with good performance.
 .
 Multicore: Luerl provides a way to transparently utilize multicores. The
 underlying Erlang VM takes care of the distribution.
 .
 Microprocesses: It should give you a Lua environment that allows you to
 effortlessly run tens of thousands of Lua processes in parallel, leveraging
 the famed microprocesses implementation of the Erlang VM. The empty Luerl
 State footprint will be yet smaller than the C Lua State footprint.
 .
 Forking Up: Because of the immutable nature of the Luerl VM, it becomes a
 natural operation to use the same Lua State as a starting point for multiple
 parallel calculations.
 .
 However, Luerl will generally run slower than a reasonable native Lua
 implementation. This is mainly due the emulation of mutable data on top of an
 immutable world. There is really no way around this. An alternative would be
 to implement a special Lua memory outside of the normal Erlang, but this would
 defeat the purpose of Luerl. It would instead be then more logical to connect
 to a native Lua.
 .
 Some valid use cases for Luerl are:
  * Lua code will be run only occasionally and it wouldn't be worth managing
    an extra language implementation in the application;
  * the Lua code chunks are small so the slower speed is weighed up by Luerl's
    faster interface;
  * the Lua code calculates and reads variables more than changing them;
  * the same Lua State is repeatedly used to 'fork up' as a basis for
    massively many parallel calculations, based on the same state;
  * it is easy to run multiple instances of Luerl which could better utilise
    multicores.