On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 10:17:03PM -0500, Peter Karman wrote: > I was actually gravitating toward C and PHP myself.
If you're interested in C bindings, I would like to collaborate with you on that. (: No more than limited high-level discussions this week, though. :) A C API is important not just for C users, but for users of dynamic language hosts who have written rapid prototype extensions that need to be optimized for high performance. C host bindings and a C API go hand in hand, though they aren't exactly the same thing. To simplify our task, I suggest that we initially target GCC/unixen only for the C bindings. It's important that people be able to write cross-platform extensions that work with the C API, but for the C host binding, I don't want to deal with cross-platform build headaches right away. > I was mostly thinking that it might be an interesting exercise to see if SWIG > could get us partway toward any one (or more) language implementations. Best, > IME, to truly make idiomatically-sensitive bindings though. It's gotta make > new > users feel more at home when they first take Lucy-in-HostLanguageX for a spin. Also, a Clownfish binding empowers users to write subclasses entirely in the host language. A SWIG binding wouldn't support that. Marvin Humphrey
