The only benchmarks I could find claims that it is significantly slower than Luajit. The official docs claim that the fastest implementation is available on fewer platforms than Luajit.
Regarding the lack of structs, the official docs say "pawn has no "struct"s, but it extends arrays so that it can mimic light-weight structures with arrays; as an example of those extensions, pawn supports array assignment and array indices can be assigned an individual "identify" (or "purpose") and even form a sub-array." but the manual's mentions of array assignment make it seem like that's just memcpy. One could imagine having bullet objects and declaring BULLET_X=0, BULLET_Y=1, BULLET_SPRITE_IDX=2, and so on, just so that when one has a bullet object and they would like to draw it at the right location they could avoid writing draw(b[2], b[0], b[1]). Having an array of untyped cells and memcpy isn't really the same as having a struct with named members. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
A lot of useful patterns become less possible when one does not have a map or set type and when one does not have coroutines. It seems like instead of coroutines Pawn includes a syntactic sugar for a switch statement that depends on a single global state variable, in which the cases can be declared like functions. This is interesting but not particularly helpful. Why can one not have multiple different state machines, multiple instances of a state machine, and so on?
The only benchmarks I could find claims that it is significantly slower than Luajit. The official docs claim that the fastest implementation is available on fewer platforms than Luajit.
Regarding the lack of structs, the official docs say "pawn has no "struct"s, but it extends arrays so that it can mimic light-weight structures with arrays; as an example of those extensions, pawn supports array assignment and array indices can be assigned an individual "identify" (or "purpose") and even form a sub-array." but the manual's mentions of array assignment make it seem like that's just memcpy. One could imagine having bullet objects and declaring BULLET_X=0, BULLET_Y=1, BULLET_SPRITE_IDX=2, and so on, just so that when one has a bullet object and they would like to draw it at the right location they could avoid writing draw(b[2], b[0], b[1]). Having an array of untyped cells and memcpy isn't really the same as having a struct with named members. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
A lot of useful patterns become less possible when one does not have a map or set type and when one does not have coroutines. It seems like instead of coroutines Pawn includes a syntactic sugar for a switch statement that depends on a single global state variable, in which the cases can be declared like functions. This is interesting but not particularly helpful. Why can one not have multiple different state machines, multiple instances of a state machine, and so on?