Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 21st Dec 2006 11:38 UTC
Permalink for comment 195038
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 13:30 UTC, submitted by JRepin
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-03-05
Actually, it's a fallacy that it's somehow easier to produce bindings for C libraries than for C++ libraries: in actual fact, tools like sip, swig or smoke use the extensive information that's available in C++ headers but not in C headers to do most of the binding automatically.
And it works: see the complete, up-to-date, high quality bindings of Qt and KDE for Python, Ruby, Java, C#.
There used to be others, like Perl, Objective C, plain C and more, but nobody seemed to need those (given that it's pretty easy to code in C++ with Qt already) and it wasn't worth keeping them up-to-date for no users.