[Ocaml-biz] SWIG and other language binders

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Brian wrote:
> Brandon wrote:
> >
> > I think beefing up SWIG would be a huge enabler.  Then all the C++
> > programmers could move on to OCaml.  People could try out
> > OCaml without
> > a significant resource committment, as they could glom it
> > onto existing code.
>
> Notice the thing about the enablers I listed- they were all
> written in the
> languages they enabled.  While I wouldn't mind a better swig
> implementation, depending upon swig for our enablers is
> implicitly saying
> that the stuff written in C++ can not be written in Ocaml.

SWIG is an interop solution, so that is in fact true.

As far as I know, nobody else has addressed "the C++ binding problem."
Several have addressed the C binding problem, but strategically that
doesn't matter.  Some have addressed the Java, C#, and Python binding
problems.

> The 3D game engine is an enabler.  The linear algebra library is an
> enabler.  Something like J2EE, Tomcat, and/or Zope would be
> an enabler.

But they aren't migration paths.  Free idea for your linear algebra
library: include ability to link to extant BLAS/LAPACK code directly and
easily.  Then offer your "forwards movement" OCaml code.


Cheers,                         www.indiegamedesign.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

"We live in a world of very bright people building
crappy software with total shit for tools and process."
                                - Ed McKenzie