On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 10:20:21 +0900 Cedric BAIL <cedric.b...@free.fr> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:48 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri > <barbi...@profusion.mobi> wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:04 AM, Cedric BAIL <cedric.b...@free.fr> > > wrote: > >> On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Lucas De Marchi > >> <lucas.demar...@profusion.mobi> wrote: <snip> > > Bindings: I'm still to see that for real, but IMO it will make > > bindings worse. Also, people tend to think of bindings as a simply > > expose C functions in that language 1:1. This is horrible, you're > > developing for some language and you must cope with that language's > > style as much as possible. If the work to make the Python or JS > > bindings were just to generate 1:1, it would be better, but we took > > the time to think how to match language nicely. > > This is debatable. I do think that a 1:1 binding is fine as it provide > an easy and sure path with time. Still there is clearly a need to > implement a layer in the "binded" language to abstract it and make it > feel like a native JS, Python, whatever API. You may not have a 1:1 > binding in Elev8, but I think you are doing a higher up layer in JS > with EasyUI that could have been an abstraction between a 1:1 binding > and the JS world. I also think that this way the binding would have a > much easier time to provide a stable API and the script could just > include the EasyUI layer they used for development. That one would > have worked on every version of the binding without any breakage ever > and it would have make the life of maintaining that binding much more > easy. > > > For bindings, the worse part here is that you'll never be able to > > construct va_list then you'll never be abe to expose eo_do() itself. > > It's not worse, it just limiting and sad. You will be limited to use > only one function call even when you have all the value needed to do > much more... I also would have liked a way to bind that. > > > Then it's like fixing a problem that is not broken. > > Seriously ? Our binding are massively behind. We have barely one > maintained binding, JS and a few other that are slowly dying. If half > of our API was present in them, I would be happy, but that's far from > being the case. So what is the status of the Perl, Python, Ruby, Go > and all other bindings ? Tell me they are all great, cover 80% of our > API (I am not even asking for 100%) and well maintained. The Lua bindings are great, well maintained, but only cover a small percentage of EFL API. They also try to leverage Lua ways of doing stuff to make it easy for Lua scripters, it's not exactly a 1:1 binding. It's close to 1:1 though. It's not slowly dying. :-P I would love to resurrect my ancient RAD tool and have some higher level stuff for edje Lua, but I suspect Raster would veto that. I'm not ready to do that yet anyway, so will leave that for a later discussion. The textblock API is kinda scary huge, that's why I left it out last time I was adding Lua bindings. Which bit me last week when I was considering a design that would use textblock from Lua. lol BTW, no one answered my previous question - will I have to redo the Lua bindings to suit eo now? -- A big old stinking pile of genius that no one wants coz there are too many silver coated monkeys in the world.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. SALE $99.99 this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122412
_______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
