[Kde-bindings] Common work for Qt4 bindings

[Eric Jardim]

2005/9/20, Simon Edwards <simon at simonzone.com>:
>
> 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.


IMO, this can only be anwsered by time. I also think that static languages,
like Java and C#, will not take advantage over the already standard static
C++.

On the other hand, it is useful to bring other developers to the KDE
project, and integrate existing libraries. But too many languages may be a
problem also, if not well managed.

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?


I think it is different. For what I know SIP is not completely automatic,
and only works for Python. Smoke will be an intermediate solution for all
languages. Besides, I think SIP binds each method of each class, while Smoke
is more dynamic and queriable (more slow, specialy to load). Well, I am not
very sure of this.

The good points of SIP is that it is ready and on the road for a long time.
I don't know the end of this story, but if we can do it better, why not? The
worse that can happen, is to be the same it was.

[Eric Jardim]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-bindings/attachments/20050920/f7880452/attachment.html>