Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 21st May 2004 01:17 UTC
Permalink for comment
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 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
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
More News »
Sponsored Links



"Are people really willing to drop back to incomplete language bindings (have to be rolled seperately, you know!) with a dozen different wrappers that all work strangely"
This is not fair. Are you aware of the fact that gtkmm(GTK+'s C++ binding), PyGTK(Python binding), and Guile binding is generated from the *same* interface definition? What do you mean by "have to be rolled separately"?
Yes, it's not completely automatic now, but the suggestion should be to improve interface definitions and wrapper generators, not spreading fear and promoting Mono mindlessly.
Concerning bindings require their own documentation and string usages and so on: That's inevitable. That's what makes gtkmm a true C++ binding, PyGTK a truly Pythonic binding, etc. I want a Pythonic binding for Python, not a syntax-skinned C# bastardized to look like Python. If I wanted to use C#-like string, I would use just C#, not Python.