Re: Bindings for .NET languages

Patrick Hartling <[email protected]> writes:

> I have been trying to follow the discussions regarding the refactoring
> of Boost.Python and Luabind because the issue of multi-language
> interoperability ties in very heavily with my Ph.D. research.  

Welcome!

> A lot of the discussion is way over my head right now, but I hope
> that with time I'll be able to garner more information from the list
> archives and from future posts.  I have checked out the langbindings
> branch of the Boost source tree with the intent of learning how all
> the magic happens, and I am pretty sure I have a long way to go
> before I'll understand the code.
>
> In any event, I am curious as to how the design of the new Boost
> language bindings code is being generalized for languages besides
> Python and Lua.  From some of the early discussions back in June, I
> got the impression that interpreted languages were the focus of the
> work, 

Well, dynamically-typed languages, anyway.

> and I am wondering if that is in fact the case.  Does that have any
> specific impact on the design

Not that I know of; we're not generating any bytecode, for example.

> or does it relate more to the fact that interpreted languages often
> have C APIs for embedding the interpreter in natively compiled code?

More likely that.  Of course, the two cases we're trying to handle,
Python and Lua, have a lot in common, and we haven't been looking
around for additional ways to complicate... er, generalize it.

> All of this boils down to an interest I have in making
> native/unmanaged C++ code (relatively?) easily accessible by C# and
> other .NET languages and vice versa.  I really like what
> Boost.Python offers in terms of exposing C++ for extension and use
> by Python code, and I like what it offers in simplifying the
> Python/C API.  It's something I want very much to see replicated for
> .NET.

Does .NET have a [nasty] C API too?

> For the last 8 or 9 months, I have been trying to keep track of
> efforts to make C# talk to unmanaged C++ in roughly the same manner
> that Python and C++ can talk via Boost.Python.  Unfortunately, the
> projects that held the most promise at the beginning of the year
> seemed to run out of steam after only a couple of months.  There is
> SWIG's support for C#, but I am not sure that will meet my needs
> correctly.  So, I am contemplating writing something similar to
> Boost.Python for .NET, though I am not yet sure how--or even if--it
> will work.  Has anyone here given any thought to this?

Only in the most abstract sense.

> There are no doubt dozens of issues, big and little, that I need to
> investigate and evaluate before proceeding.  Before I go too far, I
> want to be sure I don't duplicate anyone else's efforts, and I want
> to be sure I start from the right foundation if I do write the code
> myself.

If you can evaluate how similar the prolems of binding C# and C++ are
to those of binding Python and C++, I think you should be able to
tell whether it's worth participating in the langbinding work (and
trying to get us to accomodate C#) or going off on your own.

Regards,
-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf