Hello Jefferson, Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 4:12:40 PM, you wrote:
may be i doesn't understand something but why c#, java, delphi, visual basic, perl, python, ruby or even ml better than c++? symbol names in C++ are easily predictable with wrapper using extern "C". i think that you just not tried to write warppers to code in other languages - the same problems are everywhere > Actually, one language you mention there *is* worse than the others > for writing wrappable library code: C++. Admittedly, they've got a > Python interface now via boost, but the main problem with writing > wrappable C++ code is the template system and the inheritence systems > getting in the way. Symbol names aren't predictable and not > standardized, so it becomes impossible to write a portable system for > finding and binding to functions in a library. I've not yet found a > good way to do it in FFI code, and I would love to, as one library in > particular I hold near and dear -- OpenSceneGraph -- is entirely > written in C++. > -- Jeff > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 6:35 AM, Bulat Ziganshin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hello Mauricio, >> >> Tuesday, November 11, 2008, 2:26:21 PM, you wrote: >> >> imho, Haskell isn't worse here than any other compiled language - C++, >> ML, Eiffel and beter tnan Java or C#.every language has its own object >> model and GC. the only ay is to provide C-typed interfaces between >> languages (or use COM, IDL and other API-describing languages) >> >>> I think Haskell is not nice to write general purpouse libraries >>> that could be easily and completly wrapped by other languages. >>> You can wrap gtk, sqlite3, gsl, opengl etc., but you can't write >>> python bindings for Data.Graph. >> >>> But, then, if you claim there's nothing else Haskell can't do, >>> what do you need those bindings for ? :) >> >>> Best, >>> Mauricio >> >>>> Hi everyone >>>> >>>> So I should clarify I'm not a troll and do "see the Haskell light". But >>>> one thing I can never answer when preaching to others is "what does >>>> Haskell not do well?" >>>> >>>> Usually I'll avoid then question and explain that it is a 'complete' >>>> language and we do have more than enough libraries to make it useful and >>>> productive. But I'd be keen to know if people have any anecdotes, >>>> ideally ones which can subsequently be twisted into an argument for >>>> Haskell ;) >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> Dave >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org >>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >> -- Best regards, Bulat mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
