[Kde-bindings] Readable GCC dump parser

[Ashley Winters]

--- Richard Dale <Richard_Dale at tipitina.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > The fact that Perl doesn't is to Perl's disadvantage in the grand
> > scheme of things. Regardless, I'm embracing the C
> > lowest-common-denominator.
> I think magic marshalling might make a small scale project easier,
> but I'm not 
> convinced it would be worth the extra code bloat. Adapting the PerlQt
> 
> marshalling for QtRuby only took about a day.

Magic marshalling is insane code bloat. It requires taking the entirety
of the Qt headers and porting them to the target language. The Smoke
way is better, and is not going away (for Perl especially, since each
line of Perl code in PerlQt is startup penalty).

> > I would expect that Smoke would be optional for the type 2
> languages.
> > Java/C# would likely want to do everything at compile-time for the
> > speed advantage, as well as the fact that they have method
> overloading
> > which their compilers can resolve at compile-time. I would expect
> them
> > to use Mirror alone, by default.
> I think that was what I was intending to do, until I implemented the
> smoke 
> adaptor for ruby. A big advantage to me now is that I can see it will
> be easy 
> to make it possible for PerlQt and QtRuby so share and subclass each
> others 
> Qt instances via 'bridge extensions'. So if java could be implemented
> 
> dynamically, it would make it easier to to share the runtime with
> perl and 
> ruby.

Interesting.

The ObjC example is interesting, too. I was just looking into how to
make Ada95 bindings for Qt. Is that wrong of me?

Not to mention the Ruby binding coverage on The Dot... People are now
clamboring for an object pascal binding? Really? Is anyone gonna
volunteer for that one? :)

Ashley Winters

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com