If you want to go the Swig route, Swig also works on C. In fact it works better, with less gotchas/issues. Swig wouldn't even be totally necessary. This is because C truly is the least common denominator when it comes to language binding, almost every mainstream language can call directly into C shared libraries without much of any boilerplate code (see P/Invoke in .NET or ctypes in Python for example).
But isn't (at least) the first revision of the engine core being written in C#/.NET? At this point it seems highly likely that the GUI frontend will be written in C# using the Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF). Jonathan On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Garrett Serack <garre...@microsoft.com>wrote: > I don’t think we can do C++ and only bind to MSVCRT; hence C being the > selected language. > > > > Plus, I think it’s a good idea to keep it lowest-common-denominator. :D > > > > G > > > > *From:* coapp-developers-bounces+garretts=microsoft.com@ > lists.launchpad.net > [mailto:coapp-developers-bounces+garretts<coapp-developers-bounces%2Bgarretts> > =microsoft....@lists.launchpad.net] *On Behalf Of *Trevor Dennis > *Sent:* Monday, May 17, 2010 4:43 PM > *To:* Elizabeth M Smith > *Cc:* coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net > > *Subject:* Re: [Coapp-developers] Code? > > > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Elizabeth M Smith < > emsm...@elizabethmariesmith.com> wrote: > > On 5/17/2010 7:36 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Elizabeth M Smith > <emsm...@elizabethmariesmith.com> wrote: > > > As we discussed during the summit and is mentioned on the wiki: > > > Ah, found it. > > > > Few dependencies > Fast > Small > Binding facilities for most high level languages are common > > The ability to tie a C library into anything and everything is the biggest > reason to use C over C++, using and binding to C++ libraries (especially in > most languages - they tend to be written in C) is a real headache - > actually > beyond a headache, most times it's just a recipe for failure. > > > C++ can do C bindings as well, can't it? Our bindings should certainly be > C. > Doesn't C++ share the other advantages? > > Olaf > > > What? I mean binding coapp to other higher level languages primarily > written in C. Perl, Python, PHP, Lua, D etc. > > and if we write it in C - yes a C++ binding would be easy as well. > > Thanks, > Elizabeth Smith > > > > In case Olaf means writing the library in C++ itself instead of C, only > functions defined outside of a class can > be defined with a C binding. As soon as it's in a class it must use C++ > bindings and all the name > mangling takes effect. Once that happens, connecting to the classes from > the other languages is > almost impossible. > > I've seen people try to to create bindings to a C++ library and it usually > involves writing a middle C layer between the > other apps and the C++ library. No point in doing that if we can just > write it in C in the first place. > > -- > > Trevor Dennis > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: > https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers<https://launchpad.net/%7Ecoapp-developers> > Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : > https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers<https://launchpad.net/%7Ecoapp-developers> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers Post to : coapp-developers@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~coapp-developers More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
