From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-03 21:54:23
Maciej Sobczak wrote:
> Rene Rivera wrote:
>>Interestingly I'm one of those asking for more than one language :-)
> Cool! Are you using more than one scripting language?
I haven't gotten to the point of having anything other than the Lua
bindings. But the plan is to have more. And Python would be the next
easiest to do.
> Then, use for
> example Boost.Python to export to Python and C++/Tcl to export to Tcl. I
> think you can even squeeze the definition blocks in the same .cpp file,
> or even help yourself with some preprocessor stuff to reduce code
> repetition. The fact that these two do not share any logic internally
> does not change the way you can use it.
Well yes obviously. By the way I use my own CPP IDL language to generate
the Lua bindings, and many other things automatically. But it would be
an easier, faster job, if all the bindings where the same because
writing and testing all the macro expansions is a slow painful process.
>>That might be true for TCL, but as Dave said it's not true for Python
>>and Lua. And likely is not true for most object oriented languages.
> And I don't question it. I'm just convinced that for any framework there
> exist a language that does not fit. Knowing Tcl a little bit I'm
> convinced that it will not fit into langbinding, whatever it ends up to be.
> Having said that, there are three things that will never fly at Boost:
> - universal language binding
> - universal database access lib
> - universal GUI framework
Perhaps, I can't tell the future, but at minimum various utilities that
come from those will definitely make it into Boost.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk