On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 12:56 PM, E. Wing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/24/08, Brandon Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So are you going to write this framework for us, that makes all the > > work of supporting multiple languages magically go away? > > If you bothered actually reading my comments, you might have noticed > the paragraph where I said it's not immediately obvious how to > refactor these things. But by finishing the Lua integration, I believe > there is a chance this will become more clear, and one of two things > will happen. 1) It becomes obvious how to refactor things so people > can write their own language bridges. 2) It becomes obvious > refactoring is not so easy, and the way to bridge is directly through > the Lua runtime, similar to how Obj-C/Cocoa is bridged.
It's lotsa extra work to support lotsa extra languages. We've all got things to do, we're not made of time and money. Selling people on a Lua migration is difficult enough as it is. Why don't you concentrate on *that* agenda, before bothering with even loftier stuff? > > > People who want > > > to use CMake (the project generator) should be able to decide for > > > themselves what language they want to write in. > > > > No they shouldn't. They can pay for that kind of support. > > That's a nonsensical statement to me. The point is, they can either implement the multi-language support themselves, or pay people to implement it for them. Cheers, Brandon Van Every _______________________________________________ CMake mailing list CMake@cmake.org http://www.cmake.org/mailman/listinfo/cmake