| Trolltech Home | Qt-interest Home | Recent Threads | All Threads | Author | Date | |
| All threads index page 7 | |
I looked for a Qt binding to the D programming language, but found no conclusive discussion on their mailing lists. The viewpoint of the D developer community seems to be -- according to the ML -- to have GTK bindings or similar, since C to D bindings already seem to exist. Does anyone here know something more? Since I work at a (mostly) Qt only shop (and I do like it) and wanted to evaluate D, I think some D bindings would be pretty neat. Arne -- [ signature omitted ]
Hello Arne! D bindings would be _really_ nice, but there are none and the effort needed to produce such bindings would be quite great. The GTK binding in D is via the C binding of GTK (not OO/gtkmm) afair. D supports a "native" C calling interface, though no direct support for C++ exists. P On Friday 30 March 2007 14:06, Arne Schmitz wrote: > I looked for a Qt binding to the D programming language, but found no > conclusive discussion on their mailing lists. The viewpoint of the D > developer community seems to be -- according to the ML -- to have GTK > bindings or similar, since C to D bindings already seem to exist. Does > anyone here know something more? Since I work at a (mostly) Qt only shop > (and I do like it) and wanted to evaluate D, I think some D bindings would > be pretty neat. > > Arne
Attachment:
Attachment:
pgpAFRVXPbPzx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Message 3 in thread
On 30.03.07 18:08:21, Petar Forai wrote:
> D bindings would be _really_ nice, but there are none and the effort needed to
> produce such bindings would be quite great. The GTK binding in D is via the C
> binding of GTK (not OO/gtkmm) afair. D supports a "native" C calling
> interface, though no direct support for C++ exists.
Well, the Python bindings use plain C too for the binding code, that
works pretty well. Of course for those its easier because Phil Thompson
wrote sip - a binding generator to create Python bindings for C++ code.
But still, if you can come up with such a tool the binding is not that
hard anymore (AFAIK the Ruby bindings are done with a similar framework)
Andreas
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 4 in thread
On Friday 30 March 2007, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> On 30.03.07 18:08:21, Petar Forai wrote:
> > D bindings would be _really_ nice, but there are none and the effort
> > needed to produce such bindings would be quite great. The GTK binding in
> > D is via the C binding of GTK (not OO/gtkmm) afair. D supports a "native"
> > C calling interface, though no direct support for C++ exists.
>
> Well, the Python bindings use plain C too for the binding code, that
> works pretty well. Of course for those its easier because Phil Thompson
> wrote sip - a binding generator to create Python bindings for C++ code.
> But still, if you can come up with such a tool the binding is not that
> hard anymore (AFAIK the Ruby bindings are done with a similar framework)
Bindings are very hard, and there is a lot of work to do even once you written
a generator like SIP. The runtime issues you have to solve are more difficult
than it first appears. The less dynamic a language is, the harder it is to do
the runtime, and from what I've read D doesn't have anything much in the way
of a dynamic runtime.
I don't know of any languages that allow you to call C++ directly because
there is no standard system for C++ name mangling, and I don't think it's
possible. The ruby bindings use a language independent dynamic runtime
library called 'smoke' with a simple C interface. Smoke is also used by
PerlQt, Qyoto (C#) and a binding for PHP. So it could be used for D, but
would certainly still be a non-trivial amount of work, and I wonder if the
likely size of the user community for D would justify another binding in
addition to the GTK one. You would still need to generate a huge amount of D
code that would invoke the Qt methods in the Smoke library.
-- Richard
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 5 in thread
On Friday 30 March 2007 14:06:08 Richard Dale wrote:
> On Friday 30 March 2007, Andreas Pakulat wrote:
> > On 30.03.07 18:08:21, Petar Forai wrote:
> > > D bindings would be _really_ nice, but there are none and the effort
> > > needed to produce such bindings would be quite great. The GTK binding
> > > in D is via the C binding of GTK (not OO/gtkmm) afair. D supports a
> > > "native" C calling interface, though no direct support for C++ exists.
> >
> > Well, the Python bindings use plain C too for the binding code, that
> > works pretty well. Of course for those its easier because Phil Thompson
> > wrote sip - a binding generator to create Python bindings for C++ code.
> > But still, if you can come up with such a tool the binding is not that
> > hard anymore (AFAIK the Ruby bindings are done with a similar framework)
>
> Bindings are very hard, and there is a lot of work to do even once you
> written a generator like SIP. The runtime issues you have to solve are more
> difficult than it first appears. The less dynamic a language is, the harder
> it is to do the runtime, and from what I've read D doesn't have anything
> much in the way of a dynamic runtime.
>
> I don't know of any languages that allow you to call C++ directly because
> there is no standard system for C++ name mangling, and I don't think it's
> possible. The ruby bindings use a language independent dynamic runtime
> library called 'smoke' with a simple C interface. Smoke is also used by
> PerlQt, Qyoto (C#) and a binding for PHP. So it could be used for D, but
> would certainly still be a non-trivial amount of work, and I wonder if the
> likely size of the user community for D would justify another binding in
> addition to the GTK one. You would still need to generate a huge amount of
> D code that would invoke the Qt methods in the Smoke library.
>
> -- Richard
the only one I know is Objective C++
Mathieu
--
[ signature omitted ]