[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: nanomsg binding?
- From: "Pierre Chapuis" <catwell@...>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 14:38:11 +0100
> Pierre Chapuis <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2013-11-11 16:05:54]:
> I would use it, but FFI...
Yes, I'm not saying you should use it. It makes sense to have a FFI
binding and a "normal" C binding. But I am saying it would be nice if
there were not three different C bindings, and if the remaining one had
roughly the same API as the LuaJIT one.
I am not saying you should adopt the API of luajit-nanomsg by the way! If
you have better ideas, it can change.
But eventually having the same API is a huge plus, because you can easily
use one binding or the other depending on which one is available on the
system, because it allows sharing test suites and examples...
>> I really don't think a library still very unstable should have that
>> many bindings.
> Unstable in which terms? I find it pretty usable in my use case (tm) so
I agree, I am a bit hard with it. When we made the LuaJIT binding it was
unstable, now it works better. But it still has severe issues
(https://github.com/nanomsg/nanomsg/issues - failing assertions etc) that
make me wait to replace the 0MQ I use in production.