laminar VS MIO

enet - Golden standard, tested and reliable - Not native rust - Does not seem to be popular in rust turbulence - Readme says it is not stable, but last meaningful commit was 1 year ago - Lacking documentation and examples - Not very popular laminar - Last meaningful release was 3 years ago (ignoring changes that fix typos etc.) - Despite this, everywhere (book, readme) there are mentions that it is under "active development" - Created for Amethyst, which is dead. I am kinda fearful that the same thing will happen to this lib. Tachyon - New and not tested in the battle - Many features that other libraries have planned, Tachyon actually has implemented - Lacking documentation (except for one big readme file), tests, examples Quinn - Big, under active development (daily commits), very popular because web development. - Modular, ability to just use core implemetation: quinn-proto - Do i really need TLS certificates and cryptography for my playing with friends game server? - Stream based, I would need to implement recv/send messages on top of it (not that hard tbh) - Only reliable stream and "unreliable" messages.

laminar: networking library used with the amethyst game engine.

Maybe check out laminar and quinn, which implement custom protocols on top of UDP (quinn implements QUIC), to get an idea on how to do things.

For the game packets I would suggest https://github.com/amethyst/laminar.

I think that you are referring to something like laminar or turbulence do.

Was playing around with mio (https://github.com/tokio-rs/mio) (not that mio itself is very important here!) and was trying to implement a simple something that I've done in java before: a Reactor that you can register ReactorClients with that will get callback whenever there are events on the corresponding socket etc.

How does it compare to mio?

TcpStream gets its wake behavior by delegating to the fd wakers. The Unix wakers have a few implementations, for different platforms. On Linux and Android, epoll is used.

The real implementation details of the I/O event queue is done in mio as u/hniksic pointed out, but that's more comparable with libuv which is certainly a huge part of the Node runtime. mio and libuv have a lot of similarities (at least they used to).

My example was "twice by one developer", not "twice across all indexed repos."

A spot check shows that quite a few in your link are used specifically to ensure correct handling of Rust multi-level breaks work syntax, like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-analyzer/blob/master/crate... , https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/blob/master/tests/sourc... , https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/tools/rust... , https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/tools/rust... and likely more.

Another is a translation of BASIC code to Rust, using break as a form of goto. https://github.com/coding-horror/basic-computer-games/blob/e...

The example at https://github.com/tokio-rs/mio/blob/master/tests/tcp.rs is a nice one

    // Wait for our TCP stream to connect

In my program, I have about 6 different components that follow the pattern below. Basically, the components run a thread while polling on crossbeam channels, file descriptors or sockets. For polling, I am using Mio (https://github.com/tokio-rs/mio).

On the code side it's pretty much the same as C++. You have a module that defines an interface and per-platform implementations that are included depending on a "configuration conditional checks" #[cfg(target_os = "linux")] macro.

https://github.com/tokio-rs/mio/blob/c6b5f13adf67483d927b176...

Made possible by Wasi support for Mio https://github.com/tokio-rs/mio/pull/1576

Indeed! In practice it's done through the polling operation: instead of a separate poll for op1 and op2, the program essentially tells the OS "wake me when either op1 or op2 is ready" (through the epoll syscall on Linux). The mio crate implements this, and the example on the readme is basically the same loop, but written with this polling strategy in mind.