luv design decision - why lua C binding and not LuaLIT FFI?

[Kamil Witecki]

Hello,

I really appreciate luvit. I want to understand better what stands behind design decisions. I thought about integration libuv with Lua myself some time ago (before I discovered that luv does that). Though my idea was to use LuaJIT and its FFI. I did a simple proof of concept (integrated libuv timers and tested these). Did not push more effort into it. Though I wonder if there is point in revisiting the topic. I would like to understand what caused luv to be written in C. You must have analyzed the task deeply, so I am eager to learn the reason.

Pozdrawiam,

Kamil Witecki

[Tim Caswell]

When I started, luajit ffi didn't support C callbacks.  It was later added, but performance is bad and Mike advises against using them.

I've since wished for a non-callback interface to libuv, but nobody ever had time to write it.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "luvit" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to luvit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kamil Witecki]

Thank you! I haven't considered that one. By non-callback interface you refer to, for example, coroutine based?

Pozdrawiam,
Kamil Witecki.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "luvit" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/luvit/dqjDWfH1VPw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to luvit+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Tim Caswell]

C doesn't have native coroutines, but I mean something with a more poll style interface.

Instead of a blocking `uv_run()` which then blocks and calls various callbacks in C, I'd want a `uv_next_event()` or something that returns the next event in a giant union which I have to manually route to the handlers myself.