On Tue, 1 Jan 2013 15:02:02 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <ras...@rasterman.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2012 13:46:41 +1000 David Seikel <onef...@gmail.com> > said: > > > 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? > > no. you don't have to. current efl api will keep working fine until > 2.0 after then it may continue to work (to greater or lesser extents) > but there definitely will bee no support for expansion of it and new > stuff will go via eo. i'd say it's early days for eo so you may end > up with teething problems if you try to move to it, BUT, it may also > save you a buttload of time in the long-run due to introspection etc. I also wanted to try out the LuaJIT C binding stuff. So I think I might experiment with them both, see what pans out the best. -- 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 SQL Server Development, Administration, T-SQL, SSAS, SSIS, SSRS and more. Get SQL Server skills now (including 2012) with LearnDevNow - 200+ hours of 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_122512
_______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
