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

[Zachary Lund]

On 01/25/2012 12:44 PM, bls wrote:
> 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.

You misunderstood or did not read my entire post. I claimed messing with 
C++ was not productive. I did not claim we couldn't or shouldn't wrap 
over a library and even suggested we use a modified version of GTK+ for 
such a thing.

I said writing a native D library was ideal. I did not say it was the 
most effecient method. I think working into playing with C++ libraries 
is asking for trouble and more man-time that it's worth. You seem to 
indicate that I meant otherwise.