Re: [Now that 0.17 is (almost) out]

[Jim Blandy <jimb at red-bean dot com>]

As far as inter-language compatibility goes, you guys might find
inspiration in mockingbird, a project done at IBM that seems to have
begun life as a versatile system for generating RPC protocols, but
turned into a general interface matching system.

http://www.research.ibm.com/internettech/mocking.html

Ariel Rios <jarios@usa.net> writes:

> Miroslav Silovic <silovic@zesoi.fer.hr> wrote:
> 
> 
> > So... I agree that gnome-python folks should be contacted, as well as
> > people who wrote bindings to other languages (objc and TOM pop to
> > mind). Perhaps a common mailing list would be a good start, as well.
> > I think that a common language binding base is *extremely* important
> > for GNOME (as language neutrality is its major feature, and because
> > GNOME is the only major library suite in existance that actually gave
> > any thought to true multilanguage support).
> 
> I agree. One of the most important gnome (and of course gtk) feature is the
> ability of using almost any programming language. However, I think that almost
> all of the bindings vary in the way they are implemented. I think a 'standard'
> way of doing the bindings most be found and used. In that way we can have a
> common ground on which we can share and use the work made by others.
> 
> A mailing list for what we may call gnome common language specification is
> very important to start talking with the people working in other bindings
> -I think on Haskell, Pascal, Jscript, Eiffel ones.
> 
> Also, it may allow us to develop an app using several different languages at a
> time depending which language is more convenient to tackle specific problems.
> 
> >It would also allow us to
> > share effort with other teams (thereby allowing, for instance, objc
> > folks to tackle libxml, while we finish libgnome binding - both of
> > which would (hopefully) be reusable from, say, Ada).
> Divide and conquer. It would be better to split the task in such a way that we
> do not have to do and redo the same things in every language binding.
> 
> In that way we can also have a base upon new bindings be developed. For
> example, bindings for GNU Prolog may reuse all of the machinery done by the
> other language bindings developers and so, the new language bindings may be
> very short in size and development time having not to begin everything from
> scratch.
> 
> This gnome common lang. spec. should be included as a standard gnome
> component.
> 
> Ariel
> 
> ____________________________________________________________________
> Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.netaddress.com/?N=1