|
|
|
|
|
|
by jeffbee
1952 days ago
|
|
|
I guess there is an audience for this stuff, among embedded systems developers or whatever, but after a brief look at the project it doesn't strike me as a project written with the care needed for C libraries. It is severely under-documented, for starters. For example, the word "thread" does not appear anywhere. Not sure why one would choose this over QUICHE. |
|
|
because it doesn't use threads? The library is intended to be used inside an eventloop. I think the same also applies for other typical transport libraries - e.g. HTTP/2 or TLS ones.
> Not sure why one would choose this over QUICHE.
I think there are certainly reasons. lsquic seems a lot more optimized than quiche and most other libraries out there. It makes use of some pretty clever datastructures (e.g. https://github.com/litespeedtech/lsquic/blob/master/src/libl...), and likely has a drastically lower rate of heap allocations than other implementations. Some of those things - like the use of intrusive linked lists - are unfortunately not that easy to apply in Rust.
I wouldn't be suprised if lsquic outperforms various other implementations - and if that's important to users it might be a reason to choose it (but as always: measure for your use-case).
I personally also think Rust is the way to go for system level code. But I wouldn't dismiss a project for not using Rust. And this one at least has a fair set of unit-tests, so it looks to me a lot more sane than a lot of other C based projects.