http.zig VS mach

I have a somewhat popular HTTP server library for Zig [1]. It started off as a thread-per-connection (with an optional thread pool), but when it became apparent that async wasn't going to be added back into the language any time soon, I switched to using epoll/kqueue.

Both APIs allow you to associate arbitrary data (void ) with the event that you're registering. So when you're notified of the event, you can access this data. In my case, it's a big Conn struct. It contains things like the # of requests on this connection (to enforce a configured max request per connection), a timestamp where it should timeout if there's no activity. The Conn is part of an intrusive linked list, so it has a next: Conn and prev: *Conn. But, what you're probably most curious about, is that it has a Request.State. This has a static buffer ([]u8) that can grow as needed to hold all the received data up until that point (or if we're writing the data, then the buffered data that we have to write). It's important to have a max # of connections and a max request size so you can enforce an upper limit on the maximum memory the library might use. It acts as a state machine to track up to what point it's parsed the request. (since you don't want to have to re-parse the entire request as more bytes trickle in).

It's all half-baked. I can do receiving/sending asynchronously, but the application handler is called synchronously, and if that, for example, calls PG, that's probably also synchronous (since there's no async PG library in Zig). Makes me feel that any modern language needs a cohensive (as in standard library, or de facto standard) concurrency story.

[1] https://github.com/karlseguin/http.zig

I took a year off, and one of the things I did was learn Zig. I've built a number of libraries, including one of the currently more popular HTTP server libraries (https://github.com/karlseguin/http.zig).

A number of my libraries are used for https://www.aolium.com/ which I decided to write for myself.

I try to write a bit every day with the benefit that I can "waste" time digging into things or exploring likely-to-fail paths.

Myself and many others are betting on Zig in major ways, I truly think it has a bright future ahead.

In spare time, myself and a few others are working on a game engine in Zig[0], and the Zig core team has been very receptive to addressing issues our project faces and supporting us.

Others are working on pixel art editors[1], open source 2D RPG games[2], there's a group of independent folks working on a 3D massive immersive sim game[3], a group working on making Zig an amazing language for micro-controllers[4], etc.

Please consider donating $5-10 a month to the ZSF! They are a great group of people, and it has so many knock-on effects for others in the FOSS community. :)

[0] https://machengine.org/

[1] https://github.com/foxnne/pixi

[2] https://github.com/foxnne/aftersun

[3] https://github.com/Srekel/tides-of-revival

[4] https://github.com/ZigEmbeddedGroup

I don't know if there's anything better than a zip. For our website[0] which includes a bunch of docs for our game engine, Zig packages, etc. we just offer a link "offline version of this site" in the footer which is an ~80MB zip file.

I think the challenge with zip files is.. do you want all the images? do you want all versions of the docs, or just a specific version of the docs? It's hard to tailor the zip to the user's desire. But zip still seems to be the best.

[0] https://machengine.org/

Cool to see others working on this problem. I hope more people do.

Funnily I've seen a lot of programmers and math folks who express how truly, genuinely beautiful Beziers and the math behind them are. But I've never met an artist or graphic designer who didn't express some deep frustration at Bezier controls and how hard they are to work with.

There are even games[0] which make a mockery out of how hard Bezier controls are to use, where the game is purely using the controls.

Controls are just one side of the problem, in my view; the other side is that cubics are terrible for GPUs, they don't understand them - and I believe many of the best 2D graphics libraries today are not even fully GPU accelerated, e.g. Skia. There are folks working on compute shader-based approaches, where we try to shoe-horn this CPU-focused algorithm into GPUs and pray - but it still isn't really suitable.

The controls suck for artists, and the math sucks for GPUs. This is only true of cubics, if you restrict yourself to quadratics (although that brings other challenges), both the control issue goes away (you can just click+drag the curve!) and the performance issue goes away (quadratics are triangles, GPUs love them)

That's the summary of the talk[1] I gave at SYCL'22. In that talk, I didn't have time to present the downsides of quadratics (which are real) - so if you watch it please keep that in mind - but my overall point I think is a solid one: the controls suck, and GPUs can't handle them.

The only reason we stick with cubics in its current form is because of SVG, compatibility with existing tooling, etc. But isn't it crazy? We have new bitmap image formats all the time, and so few vector graphics formats.

In Mach engine[2] we're continuing to explore this space, end-to-end, from author tooling -> format -> rendering. I'm not claiming we have a perfect solution, we don't, but we're at least thinking about this problem. Kudos to the authors of this article for thinking about this space as well.

[0] https://bezier.method.ac/

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTybQ-5MlrE

[2] https://machengine.org

A game engine https://machengine.org is being written in zig, there's also https://microzig.tech as zig is well suited to embedded development.

https://github.com/hexops/mach (shameless plug)

Zig fits pretty naturally here too. We've got ~19 WebGPU examples[1] which use Dawn natively (no browser support yet), and we build it using Zig's build system so it 'just works' out of the box with zero fuss as long as you grab a recent Zig version[2]. No messing with cmake/ninja/depot_tools/etc.

WASM support in Zig, Rust, and C++ is also not equal. C++ prefers Emscripten which reimplements parts of popular libraries like SDL, for me personally that feels a bit weird as I don't want my compiler implementing my libraries / changing how they behave. Rust I believe generally avoids emscripten(?), but Zig for sure lets me target WASM natively and compile C/C++ code to it using the LLVM backend and soon the custom Zig compiler backend.

[1] https://github.com/hexops/mach-examples

[2] https://github.com/hexops/mach#supported-zig-version

We're building Mach which aims to be competitive with Unity/Unreal/Godot in spriti, but super modular / let you pick and choose which parts to use or build yourself.

git clone --recursive https://github.com/hexops/mach-examples cd mach-examples/ zig build run-sprite2d