On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 11:50:06AM -0600, David Young wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 09:07:05AM -0600, Eric Haszlakiewicz wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 03:51:52PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:02:33PM +0000, David Holland wrote: > > > > Writing language bindings for a simple and straightforward library is > > > > a simple and straightforward undertaking. > > > > > > OK, so prove it by writing a perl binding format :) > > > I've never written a language binding, so it's not going to be > > > straightforward for me anyway. > > > > It's probably not as hard as you think: > > http://www.swig.org/tutorial.html > > > > See especially the "SWIG for the truly lazy" section, where you basically > > just need to point it at a header file. > > Of course, this will result in a rather raw binding, and often times it can > > be useful to customize things to make them more natural for a particular > > language. > > I don't think it matters whether it is simple and straightforward to > create a language binding or not. > > The advantage to using some standard format for quotas, be it > tab-delimited tables or plists, is that if you know the standard tools > for that format, you can whip up scripts that process it in useful ways. > No language bindings necessary. > > Nhat Minh L? made a great start on stream-oriented XML tools during his > GSoC 2009 project. IMO, time spent fighting over plists v. "simple and > straightforward libraries" is time better spent creating decent tools > for current formats like XML & JSON.
Aren't these two issues orthogonal? Can't a sane C structure serialize as JSON (or XML) and all parties be satisfied? -bch > Dave > > -- > David Young > dyo...@pobox.com Urbana, IL (217) 721-9981 -- Brad Harder Method Logic Digital Consulting http://methodlogic.net/ http://twitter.com/bcharder