[Kde-bindings] Qt & SWIG
Dimitar Dobrev
dpldobrev at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 12 18:55:47 UTC 2013
Thank you for your suggestion. However, Qt-Jambi (http://qt-jambi.org/) looks abandoned. There already was an attempt to use it through IKVM here - http://code.google.com/p/qt4dotnet/ - also abandoned. Even if one were to revive it, its dependency on the seemingly dead Qt-Jambi kills any future it might have. Besides, I believe performance would be worse than with a SWIG-based solution.
Regards,
Dimitar
________________________________
From: james <james at mansionfamily.plus.com>
To: Dimitar Dobrev <dpldobrev at yahoo.com>; KDE bindings for other programming languages <kde-bindings at kde.org>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:32 PM
Subject: Re: [Kde-bindings] Qt & SWIG
What is Qt-Jambi doing, or are they in difficulty too?
Qt seems to shed bindings like they are going out of fashion.
I can imagine that's no problem for Phil with PySide, bit perhaps
a little less NIH elsewhere would work.
I mean - maybe the Qt-Jambi system could be extended? Even if it
means going through IKVM?
Or maybe the PySide stuff could be reused - even if the glue is
IronPython?
James
On 12/07/2013 13:41, Dimitar Dobrev wrote:
>
> Hello, Ruth,
>
>
> Glad to hear from you again. I am sorry Qyoto didn't work out for you but I do agree SWIG would be a better solution, with better performance indeed. I'll try to find free time to work on it as soon as possible. However, I cannot make any promise yet.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Dimitar
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Ruth Ivimey-Cook <ruth at ivimey.org>
>To: kde-bindings at kde.org
>Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 2:41 PM
>Subject: Re: [Kde-bindings] Qt & SWIG
>
>
>
>Dimitar and others,
>
>I evaluated using Qyoto for a project I'm working
on and - with regret for all the hard work Dimitar
had obviously put in - decided against it, both
because it was buggy and because it was very slow.
When I investigated the speed issue SMOKE relies
on textual matching of function signatures to call
functions. Admittedly the hashes, once matched,
are hashed and cached, but still... It also
involved at least 2 transitions from managed to
unmanaged code, which IIRC are expensive in
themselves.
>
>People I know have used SWIG to good effect but I
have no personal experience.
>
>A statically linked shim file (not a DLL, if
possible) - i.e. a set of functions coded in
managed code that each make an unmanaged call to
the "real" function would be the way I would
expect. Coding this by hand would be painful, so a
program to generate them is the obvious response.
I believe this is the SWIG way.
>
>If it were possible I would look into using
something like an XML file containing the
interface definition, maybe itself initially
generated from the .h files, and which can then be
adapted and enhanced to improve it. If the Qt
and/or SWIG community were receptive this might
become something people would support generally -
e.g. including PyQt et al. - which would benefit
everyone.
>
>HTH
>Ruth
>
>
>Dimitar Dobrev wrote:
>
>
>> Dylan,
>>
>> Thank you for your suggestion. I know about CXXI but it wouldn't be my choice for the following reasons:
>> 1. It is both incomplete and abandoned;
>> 2. It relies on Reflection.Emit which is not supported on iOS; Qt will soon officially run on iOS and it'd be nice if the bindingsworked on that platform too.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Dimitar
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: "Moonfire, D." <d.moonfire at mfgames.com>
>>To: KDE bindings for other programming languages <kde-bindings at kde.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2013 9:06 PM
>>Subject: Re: [Kde-bindings] Qt & SWIG
>>
>>
>>
>>On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:25 AM, Gour <gour at atmarama.net> wrote:
>>
>>On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 06:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
>>>Dimitar Dobrev <dpldobrev at yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 3. I don't want to have
anything to do with SMOKE any more
so if you'd
>>>> like to take this path, you'd
be on your own.
>>>
>>>Isn't it pity that there is no more
interest in having Qt bindings for
>>>the .NET/Mono? :-(
>>>
>>There was an announcement some years
back on one of the Mono blogs about an
interop layer for C++ (https://github.com/mono/cxxi). It was never mentioned again and I think a grue ate it, but it looked like a really nice set of libraries if someone maintained it beyond the initial proof of concept. I also don't know how tightly it is tied to Mono itself and if a cross-platform version could be done with it.
>>
>>Looking at the code, they were also
using Qt as the example in their POC.
>>
>>- Dylan
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Kde-bindings mailing list
>>Kde-bindings at kde.org
>>https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
Kde-bindings mailing list Kde-bindings at kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings
>
>
>--
Software Manager & Engineer
Tel: 01223 414180
Blog: http://www.ivimey.org/blog LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/ruthivimeycook/
>_______________________________________________
>Kde-bindings mailing list
>Kde-bindings at kde.org
>https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
Kde-bindings mailing list Kde-bindings at kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-bindings
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-bindings/attachments/20130712/9ca4e12a/attachment.html>
More information about the Kde-bindings
mailing list