[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-bindings
Subject:    Re: [Kde-bindings] Common work for Qt4 bindings
From:       Eric Jardim <ericjardim () gmail ! com>
Date:       2005-09-20 17:33:35
Message-ID: 432ec6c505092010331e130e6c () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


2005/9/20, Simon Edwards <simon@simonzone.com>:
>
> Are Java and C# bindings really worth the effort? Would they be used? Sur=
e
> it
> looks good for KDE if more languages are supported, but can't say I've
> seen
> much demand for Java/C# in the KDE community itself.


IMO, this can only be anwsered by time. I also think that static languages,
like Java and C#, will not take advantage over the already standard static
C++.

On the other hand, it is useful to bring other developers to the KDE
project, and integrate existing libraries. But too many languages may be a
problem also, if not well managed.

Firstly, what are the benefits of Smoke over SIP? I know that Smoke offers
> the
> possibility of one library being reused for multiple languages, but other
> than that what's the difference?


I think it is different. For what I know SIP is not completely automatic,
and only works for Python. Smoke will be an intermediate solution for all
languages. Besides, I think SIP binds each method of each class, while Smok=
e
is more dynamic and queriable (more slow, specialy to load). Well, I am not
very sure of this.

The good points of SIP is that it is ready and on the road for a long time.
I don't know the end of this story, but if we can do it better, why not? Th=
e
worse that can happen, is to be the same it was.

[Eric Jardim]

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

2005/9/20, Simon Edwards &lt;<a \
href="mailto:simon@simonzone.com">simon@simonzone.com</a>&gt;:<div><span \
class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px \
solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> Are Java \
and C# bindings really worth the effort? Would they be used? Sure it<br>looks good \
for KDE if more languages are supported, but can't say I've seen<br>much demand for \
Java/C# in the KDE community itself.</blockquote> <div><br>
IMO, this can only be anwsered by time. I also think that static
languages, like Java and C#, will not take advantage over the already
standard static C++. <br>
<br>
On the other hand, it is useful to bring other developers to the KDE
project, and integrate existing libraries. But too many languages may
be a problem also, if not well managed.<br>
&nbsp;</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid \
rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Firstly, what are \
the benefits of Smoke over SIP? I know that Smoke offers the<br> possibility of one \
library being reused for multiple languages, but other<br>than that what's the \
difference?</blockquote><div><br> I think it is different. For what I know SIP is not \
completely automatic, and only works for Python. Smoke will be an intermediate
solution for all languages. Besides, I think SIP binds each method of
each class, while Smoke is more dynamic and queriable (more slow,
specialy to load). Well, I am not very sure of this.<br>
<br>
The good points of SIP is that it is ready and on the road for a long
time. I don't know the end of this story, but if we can do it better,
why not? The worse that can happen, is to be the same it was.<br>
</div><br>
[Eric Jardim]</div>



_______________________________________________
Kde-bindings mailing list
Kde-bindings@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]