Hi, 2013/1/13 anatoly techtonik <[email protected]>
> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Fabien Castan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I personally like the idea of using SWIG to build Qt bindings. SWIG is >>> the only tool I have ever used to interface C++ and Python, and it seemed >>> fine. All of the alternatives to SWIG seemed worse. >>> For those who don't know, PyQt uses SIP. SIP is similar to SWIG in many >>> ways. >> >> Compared to PyQt, our binding creates bigger binaries, but it may be >> better with hand written rules... And we could discuss with SWIG guys on >> that point. >> > > "may be better" is a bad argument. Historically PySide used Boost, it > generated a lot of garbage too, and that's why Shiboken was born (correct > me if I wrong). The only problem with Shiboken maintainability is that it > is written in C++ and most PySide users with primarily Python background. > SWIG doesn't tackle this core flaw at all and may become an additional > hurdle that will bury the project even more. > > The good solution (tm) is not to rewrite Shiboken from scratch, but find a > way to gradually move the logic out of it into Python. > +1 it would be pity to throw away all the hard work of developers on shiboken. i'm for rewrite from c++ to python if there is no other option or interest to suport c++ shiboken. Regards R. > > >> Anyway SIP is GPL or commercial... so this is not an option. >> > > SWIG is GPL too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWIG > -- > anatoly t. > > _______________________________________________ > PySide mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside > >
_______________________________________________ PySide mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside
