I asked this in the middle of another thread but it appears to have been
lost in the noise. Assuming your library has already exposed a C AP,
does SWIG (or hand-writing C bindings) have any advantages over Ruby/DL?
The latter seems to be a far simpler way to do things, and I'm wondering
why it's not more widely used.
I asked this in the middle of another thread but it appears to have been
lost in the noise. Assuming your library has already exposed a C AP,
does SWIG (or hand-writing C bindings) have any advantages over Ruby/DL?
well, actually I think you can write a SWIG backend that generates Ruby/DL code... trhat would be cool
The latter seems to be a far simpler way to do things, and I'm wondering
why it's not more widely used.
little documentation and has been around for less time I guess, plus not automated way to do things (I mean, swig)
does SWIG (or hand-writing C bindings) have any advantages over
Ruby/DL?
I don't know, but having struggled with SWIG lately, I'm going to see
if Ruby/DL does a better job; it certainly looks cleaner than a direct
native binding solution.
Takaaki Tateishi, are you still alive? You started Ruby/DL2, but
haven't worked on it in a while... what is the status of the project?
--- SER
does SWIG (or hand-writing C bindings) have any advantages over
Ruby/DL?
I don't know, but having struggled with SWIG lately, I'm going to see
if Ruby/DL does a better job; it certainly looks cleaner than a direct
native binding solution.
Takaaki Tateishi, are you still alive? You started Ruby/DL2, but
haven't worked on it in a while... what is the status of the project?
--- SER
Takaaki Tateishi, are you still alive? You started Ruby/DL2, but
haven't worked on it in a while... what is the status of the project?
I suspended developing Ruby/DL2 since I had no time to improve it
trying to work on other libraries and my day jobs. I'd like to
resume the development after release of Ruby2.x.
In article <5h99d.29153$H11.906124@twister1.libero.it>,
Martin DeMello ha scritto:
I asked this in the middle of another thread but it appears to have been
lost in the noise. Assuming your library has already exposed a C AP,
does SWIG (or hand-writing C bindings) have any advantages over Ruby/DL?
well, actually I think you can write a SWIG backend that generates
Ruby/DL code... trhat would be cool
That's an interesting idea.
The latter seems to be a far simpler way to do things, and I'm wondering
why it's not more widely used.
little documentation and has been around for less time I guess, plus not
automated way to do things (I mean, swig)
Ruby/DL isn't as well documented, especially for dealing with C++ issues.
Isn't a shared lib produced from C++ problematic for Ruby/DL because of the
name mangling issues?
Another difference:
You can only use SWIG when you've got the sourcecode to a library, whereas
you could use Ruby/DL in a case where you have API documentation for a
shared-lib, but no source code.
Takaaki Tateishi, are you still alive? You started Ruby/DL2, but
haven't worked on it in a while... what is the status of the project?
I suspended developing Ruby/DL2 since I had no time to improve it
trying to work on other libraries and my day jobs. I'd like to
resume the development after release of Ruby2.x.
thanks a lot for the effort. What are the advantages of ruby/sl2 over
standard dl ?
Ruby/DL isn't as well documented, especially for dealing with C++ issues. Isn't a shared lib produced from C++ problematic for Ruby/DL because of the name mangling issues?
ahs sure, and the author highlighted that DL is for C not c++.