[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: nanomsg binding?
- From: Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>
- Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:13:56 -0600
On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Pierre Chapuis <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 4:04 PM, Andrew Starks <email@example.com>
>> Wheel reinvention continues, although heaven knows I'm cool with more &
> Currently thinking about what exactly I will say at the Workshop,
> and this topic in particular. I think it's a bit sad to see such
> wheel reinvention.
> I can understand that different bindings can have different goals,
> but at least we should try to agree on a reasonable interface and
> make them interchangeable.
> Regarding nanomsg, I had written a binding for LuaJIT in its early
> days and found out somebody else had as well. So we merged and the
> binding is now under the official nanomsg project on GitHub:
> I really don't think a library still very unstable should have that
> many bindings.
> Pierre Chapuis
I agree, completely. For me, I had a need and couldn't get anything
else to build. Much more important than that was the need for a
project to motivate me to really learn the Lua C API and to re-learn C
(after 20... 20!... i'm old) years of not really coding in it.
It turned out to be the perfect project. NanoMSG is small and works
well on every platform.
I'll happily point people to better libraries than mine. I don't plan
on doing much for 5.1 compatibility, anyway. Also, my approach doesn't
follow NanoMSG as closely as some may like it to:
receive = recv
enums are translated into verbose strings.
true may be passed into shutdown in order to remove all end points...