Hey.
I'm currently developing a C++/Ruby binding library, called rubybind.
(If you know luabind, you'll know what I aim at) It's open source,
under the MIT license. Currently it's in a pretty early stage of
development but is has something (barely) functional to offer.
Feel free to check it out.
here it is: https://sourceforge.net/projects/rubybind/
And yes, this is pretty much advertizing... I hope you're not offended.
have you seen rice yet? It seems like it could be similar...
On Feb 21, 3:42 am, prizr...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hey.
I'm currently developing a C++/Ruby binding library, called rubybind.
(If you know luabind, you'll know what I aim at) It's open source,
under the MIT license. Currently it's in a pretty early stage of
development but is has something (barely) functional to offer.Feel free to check it out.
here it is:rubybind download | SourceForge.net
And yes, this is pretty much advertizing... I hope you're not offended.
I second the look at Rice (Ruby Interface for C++ Extensions).
In fact, I myself began work on this exact type of library, called
rubybind, of all things. That was of course until I was pointed to
Rice. Rice isn't reliant on boost, has been in development for some
time (internally by Paul Brannan and others) and only recently
officially released.
Jason
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 7:04 AM, Tom M <thomas.macklin@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 21, 3:42 am, prizr...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hey.
>
> I'm currently developing a C++/Ruby binding library, called rubybind.
> (If you know luabind, you'll know what I aim at) It's open source,
> under the MIT license. Currently it's in a pretty early stage of
> development but is has something (barely) functional to offer.
>
> Feel free to check it out.
>
> here it is:rubybind download | SourceForge.net
>
> And yes, this is pretty much advertizing... I hope you're not offended.have you seen rice yet? It seems like it could be similar...
Actually I did know about rice, but the last thing I had read of it
was pretty long ago, and I guess I though it was abandoned or at a
very early stage of development.
Nevertheless I won't abandon rubybind. This is for several reasons.
First, I intend rubybind to be a part of a bigger library boost::(or
not boost)language_bind which will provide a generic for binding C++
with lua, ruby, python (and maybe other languages). This is still
being designed and absolutely no details have been though of. I still
think that someday I might get to it.
Second, after taking a closer look (though not a very detailed yet) I
noticed that it is a little different than what rubybinds aims at. The
memory management strategies, the exposing of classes and functions
and runtime instead of compile-time generated bindings. For now rice
looks like it is a lot slower than I thought rubybind would be.
Ofcourse since we're talking about ruby, we get to a whole new
dimension of "slow" 
And last, I like creating this library and I still would like this c++
(and ruby) excersise for my personal development. I will be using
rubybind for a game that I'm developing in ruby with a light c++ 3d
engine of mine, that will be entirely exported to ruby. By all means I
would fill more confident using rubybind than rice when creating the
game. You know... you own code is always more usable and supportable.
There might be a lot of other differences but I still haven't taken a
detailed look at rice.
I must admit that I am kinda dissapointed (I honestly thought I was
filling an empty niche in software developent with rubybind). Anyway
rubybind won't be abandoned for now.
Thanks for the replies