• kai (33/33) Jan 24 2006 We should not be expected to rewrite all C libraries in D.
• Hasan Aljudy (6/48) Jan 25 2006 I think all we need is a parser for c/c++, which I've heard is very
• Walter Bright (4/6) Jan 25 2006 I already have one. The difficulty is spending to the time to write the
• BCS (3/14) Jan 25 2006 How much of the relevant code/interface would you be willing to expose? ...
• Georg Wrede (2/18) Jan 25 2006 How about gcc? It's Open Source, after all.

kai <digitalmars kaishaku.org> writes:

We should not be expected to rewrite all C libraries in D.
In my opinion, this is a vast understatement. We should plan
to use C libraries from non-C languages for a long time.

Doing so can be difficult, primarily because you need to
write your language's equivalent to the C header files.

I believe solutions to "shipping D libraries" should take
the future of D as a popular language into consideration.

I believe you could secure a place in history by allowing
compiled code to work together more easily, especially with
respect to statically linked libraries. C style DLL/SO can
work for this, but static linking is often desirable and
dynamic libraries are often an annoyance.

We are being given an opportunity to address a problem.

If we address it thoughtfully, it could have a big impact.

Given this opportunity, I think those concerned with writing
programs to extract API from lib files and other machinations
should most definitely consider writing a language-neutral
"declaration file" to replace C header files and their ilk.

Create something, document it and implement it for D. Dis-
associate it from D, like GTK is disassociated from the GIMP.

From then on, developers writing re-usable compiled code could
provide this declaration. People would contribute the same
declaration for old libraries and the world is a happier place.

Languages would use this file as needed, instead of import
modules and header files. Automatic creation of the file(s)
should be well within reach as would automatic inclusion/use.

If we started writing D libraries that other languages could
use by way of this interface, I think we'd be on to something.

The implementation details are probably not important yet, but
I imagine you would forget OO (for now) and stay away from XML.

-- 
 kai
 tags: OMF, COFF, ELF, coff2omf, .lib, .a, SWIG, DLL, SO, COM

Hasan Aljudy <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> writes:

kai wrote:
 We should not be expected to rewrite all C libraries in D.
 In my opinion, this is a vast understatement. We should plan
 to use C libraries from non-C languages for a long time.
 
 Doing so can be difficult, primarily because you need to
 write your language's equivalent to the C header files.
 
 I believe solutions to "shipping D libraries" should take
 the future of D as a popular language into consideration.
 
 I believe you could secure a place in history by allowing
 compiled code to work together more easily, especially with
 respect to statically linked libraries. C style DLL/SO can
 work for this, but static linking is often desirable and
 dynamic libraries are often an annoyance.
 
 We are being given an opportunity to address a problem.
 
 If we address it thoughtfully, it could have a big impact.
 
 Given this opportunity, I think those concerned with writing
 programs to extract API from lib files and other machinations
 should most definitely consider writing a language-neutral
 "declaration file" to replace C header files and their ilk.
 
 Create something, document it and implement it for D. Dis-
 associate it from D, like GTK is disassociated from the GIMP.
 
 From then on, developers writing re-usable compiled code could
 provide this declaration. People would contribute the same
 declaration for old libraries and the world is a happier place.
 
 Languages would use this file as needed, instead of import
 modules and header files. Automatic creation of the file(s)
 should be well within reach as would automatic inclusion/use.
 
 If we started writing D libraries that other languages could
 use by way of this interface, I think we'd be on to something.
 
 The implementation details are probably not important yet, but
 I imagine you would forget OO (for now) and stay away from XML.
 

I think all we need is a parser for c/c++, which I've heard is very 
difficult to write! Although it can probably be easier if we're only 
dealing with header files, specially C header files (no C++).

I like the idea of language-neutral headers, but who are we to turn it 
into a de-facto standard? How can we do that?

"Walter Bright" <newshound digitalmars.com> writes:

"Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:dr8pef$2o7f$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 I think all we need is a parser for c/c++, which I've heard is very 
 difficult to write!

I already have one. The difficulty is spending to the time to write the 
converter. 

BCS <BCS_member pathlink.com> writes:

Walter Bright wrote:
 "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:dr8pef$2o7f$2 digitaldaemon.com...
 
I think all we need is a parser for c/c++, which I've heard is very 
difficult to write!

 
 
 I already have one. The difficulty is spending to the time to write the 
 converter. 
 
 

How much of the relevant code/interface would you be willing to expose? Enough 
to let someone else wright a program to filter and extract the pertinent info?

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

BCS wrote:
 Walter Bright wrote:
 
 "Hasan Aljudy" <hasan.aljudy gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:dr8pef$2o7f$2 digitaldaemon.com...

 I think all we need is a parser for c/c++, which I've heard is very 
 difficult to write!



 I already have one. The difficulty is spending to the time to write 
 the converter.

 How much of the relevant code/interface would you be willing to expose? 
 Enough to let someone else wright a program to filter and extract the 
 pertinent info?

How about gcc? It's Open Source, after all.