Re: Binding Libraries: A (Performance) Comparison

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great Tim Hill once stated:
> 
> There is a school of thought here that the best wrapper library is always
> thin; that is, it simply converts the underlying C API 1:1 into Lua, with
> minimal mapping of data types as necessary. I presume the assumption is
> that the less C code there is the less buggy the code will be (which seems
> to assume the Lua code will be less buggy), and that users of the C
> library will be familiar with the API and therefore can re-use their
> knowledge in Lua. I also suspect another reason is to avoid writing
> documentation for a new API.

  There was a thread about this last year:

	http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2015-03/msg00001.html

> I don’t subscribe to this philosophy. 

  I don't either, but I suspect we're in the minority.

  -spc