coapp-developers team mailing list archive

[Elizabeth M Smith <emsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 5/17/2010 7:36 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 1:23 AM, Elizabeth M Smith
> <emsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>  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