Why Ruby?

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Saturday 11 December 2010 11:17:27 David Nadlinger wrote:
> On 12/11/10 8:06 PM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > Maybe if we have any luck with SWIG we'll be able to make some
> > primitive wrappers for common C++ libraries. I'm just trying SWIG out
> > these days, but some people have reported success in wrapping some
> > libraries.
> 
> While I certainly appreciate the advertisement, the OMF/COFF issue
> described in this thread is not fundamentally solved by SWIG. In fact,
> this is precisely the reason why SWIG by default generates code to
> dynamically bind the symbols from the wrapper DLL at run-time – contrary
> to static linking, you don't need object file compatibility then (the
> same approach is also used by other projects like Derelict and QtD).

You don't need that compatability with dlls? _That_ I did not know. That would 
help a _lot_ in my case then, because most of our projects are shared libraries. 
It doesn't entirely solve the problem, but in this case, it's enough that it may 
make it feasible to actually do some stuff in D.

- Jonathan M Davis