automated C++ binding generation.. Booost D, NO , Not us. SIMD is more important.

[bls]

On 01/25/2012 10:01 AM, Zachary Lund wrote:
> On 01/25/2012 11:41 AM, bls wrote:
>> On 01/25/2012 09:07 AM, Trass3r wrote:
>>>> Whats.necessary to use D in order to create C++ bindings ?
>>>
>>> github.com/jacob-carlborg/dstep
>>
>> Quote "
>> DStep is a tool for converting C and Objective-C headers to D modules.
>> "
>> Well THAT'S nitty gritty :)
>>
>> C++ as well ? How ? And maybe the most imp[ortant point when ?
>>
>> Don't get me wrong Jacob. In case that dstep is working perfect for C++
>> hallelujah.
>>
>> (I am nevertheless convinced that porting from XML output has several
>> advantages. Multi pass code generation.
>>
>> Bjoern
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Slightly Off Topic DWT (Keinfarbton) f.i. was born on a idea of mine.
>> Frank and I have discussed the idea of using Java2XML (ANTLR based) to
>> generate D code )
>
> I'm going to be rather straight forward on my opinion and, possibly, my
> ignorance. I think C (or any language with no symbol mangling) is an
> ideal language to create a library which is usable globally in almost
> any language. I think C++ libraries are an ideal language to create a
> library which is going to be used only within the C++ community because
> of it's ill symbol mangling system. There is no "right" way to work with
> C++ in D and although there are ways to interface with C++, I do not
> think that is the ideal situation.
>
> That being said, libraries like wxWidgets are very large and have been
> acquired over several years of hardwork by a very large group. I do not
> think that a GUI toolkit library should have to bother with networking,
> sound, and so on. Also given the "standard" library D has, I think the
> GUI library D can provide should use Phobos extensively rather than its
> own mechanisms.
>
> I think the ideal situation is to have a native D library. Creating
> binds to a C++ library is only a temporary solution and is not ideal
> both in implementation and in usage.
>
> I do not mind using a C library in D because of how straight forward it
> is. But simply mentioning C++ in D seems to add unneeded complexity
> which should be avoided. I think the answer to a question such as
> "What's the alternative to Qt in D?" should not be "Qt bindings" but
> maybe a library which imitates the implementation and/or interface of Qt
> UI widgets in native D.
>
> Another problem this causes is the seemingly unneccessary time needed to
> develop such libraries. I kinda regret saying this but using a C library
> in an OOP wrapper can be optimal and easy to work with. Perhaps adding
> to GTK+ as a C library for functionality that we want would be more
> ideal than trying to mess with C++.
>
> I personally think the SIMD feature is much more important than trying
> to mess with C++.

Thanks for the  feedback.
well, I think we have very different views.

Unfortunately I am not a student anymore instead I am a unhappy tax payer.
To fulfill my Job I need GUI,RIA(WEB), Database and XML(SOAP) support. 
To say the least.  So pretty much everything D is not able to deliver 
atm. We are buying 3 party add ons in a few kilo bucks region and 
unfortunately we have to work with a Tool chain which is far away from 
being perfect.
In other words the D language is already offering more than we 
need,could be an option,  but the library situation is a disaster.

wxWidgets. Do you really care about wrapped vs native library ?
Do you think that the D community will ever be able to create a 
wxWidgets comparable native D lib. while not being able to spend some 
time in creating a binding generator ? I would be glad to have such 
bindings !

My 2 cents.