On Thursday, 17 November 2016 at 06:33:06 UTC, Kim wrote:
Yes I see the higher level as a weakness. It may save you time
to integrate in D, but tries to hide complexity. Hiding
complexity can hurt in other ways.
I think I will go for the more C-like binding of DerelictLua; I
am fine for the shared libraries binding as I don't need static
bindings, but I guess that could be added without too much
effort?
I've worked with both. I prefer DerelictLua, because you have
more direct control. But be prepared to deal with Lua stacks and
its C API, which can be a bit annoying at times. You'll probably
start writing you own D wrappers for convenience (that's where
D's templates shine) and end up with something like LuaD - which
makes you appreciate LuaD even more.
