[JarrettBillingsley]

In an attempt to make the native API more seamless than, say, Lua's, I've taken advantage of things like using D's builtin GC. This certainly makes things easier to use, but at the cost of performance. The language can't use its own GC or any kind of reference-counting scheme.

The other problem with the current API is that no matter how hard you try, it's never going to be as terse and easily-usable as MiniD itself. So it seems like a fruitless venture to keep at it the way it is.

What now seems to me like a better approach is to use a more traditional API design - fairly low-level and ugly. Then, on top of that, make a very powerful binding lib, much more powerful than the current one. Then most meaningful interaction between the scripting language and the host happens at the binding library level. Seamlessness is then achieved at a high level rather than a low level.

So this is going to be another big thing in MiniD 2!

[csauls]

Sounds good! Also, having the "ugly" API available may prove useful for those of us who want to make MiniD do "weird" things.
_________________
Chris Nicholson-Sauls