Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:21:25 +0200 From: Luca Barbato <lu_zero@...too.org> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Best place to discuss other lightweight libraries? On 04/22/2013 04:53 PM, Rich Felker wrote: > - Thread allergies, i.e. horribly over-complicating program logic to > avoid threads. The best examples I can think of are the added logic > needed to generalize a program that's reading from ordinary file > descriptors (e.g. connection sockets) in an event loop to support > SSL sockets or zlib-compressed streams. (Note: there are ways to > address this kind of problem more cleanly without threads too, but > nobody does it. I can elaborate if anybody's interested.) I'm interested to read about it. > - DBus. Sadly nobody is pushing for a better local socket multicast abstraction to send notifications back and forth in an efficient fashion. I'm hoping for nanomsg once it is complete or Binder once it is correctly documented ^^; (and thus implemented in more than few forks of linux and maybe haiku) > - Use of global state. Even seemingly-harmless things like a global > registered log function are harmful, because two different libraries > (or the main program and a library) might be trying to use the > library with the global log destination, and clobbering each other's > choices. For this there aren't solution that won't cause different problems I'm afraid. > - Designs based on shared libraries, especially lots of them. This > creates bloat and often interferes with the ability to use static > linking. Special mention to those that want to do clever stuff on the init section (e.g. change a program global state from there) > - Dependency on any library with the above problems. :-) And that kills everybody using glib? *runs and hides* lu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.