[Kde-bindings] Common work for Qt4 bindings

[Simon Edwards]

Hello,

On Tuesday 13 September 2005 22:03, Richard Dale wrote:
> Yes, I'm especially keen on promoting ruby Qt and KDE programming, but
> python  
> and other scripting languages like javascript are just as important for KDE 
> as a whole. And Java and C# bindings should have a place in the KDE4 
> development environment..

Are Java and C# bindings really worth the effort? Would they be used? Sure it 
looks good for KDE if more languages are supported, but can't say I've seen 
much demand for Java/C# in the KDE community itself.

> If Smoke v2 has a Berkley license then there can be dual license commercial 
> offerings based on a common library. Smoke v2 doesn't exist yet, and so 
> technically it can be whatever we want it to be. So PyQt could be based on 
> Smoke v2 and still have a commercial version. Is it time to move beyond SIP? 

Firstly, what are the benefits of Smoke over SIP? I know that Smoke offers the 
possibility of one library being reused for multiple languages, but other 
than that what's the difference?

> On the other hand, common language bindings would be better for the KDE 
> project, but not necessarily for an individual bindings project. I don't 
know 
> and wouldn't have brought up the subject of Smoke based python bindings if 
> Eric hadn't talked about doing Boost::Python KDE bindings.

cheers,

-- 
Simon Edwards             | Guarddog Firewall
simon at simonzone.com       | http://www.simonzone.com/software/
Nijmegen, The Netherlands | "ZooTV? You made the right choice."