[Kde-bindings] Common work for Qt4 bindings

[Simon Edwards]

On Tuesday 20 September 2005 19:33, Eric Jardim wrote:
> 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++.

I agree. The mindshare market segment for a C++/Java/C# style language is 
already taken on KDE. => C++ is it.

While for the Gnomes it is a different story. They started with C. Not even OO 
in that case.

> 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.

I thought Smoke did this too.

> 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.

:) All I ask is that Python (or whatever language) bindings stay compatible 
with each other. The last thing I want to see is SIP+KDE Python programs and 
Smoke+KDE Python programs.

cheers,

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