From: prizrak6@...
Date: 2008-02-22T04:34:58+09:00
Subject: Re: rubybind library

Actually I did know about rice, but the last thing I had read of it
was pretty long ago, and I guess I though it was abandoned or at a
very early stage of development.

Nevertheless I won't abandon rubybind. This is for several reasons.

First, I intend rubybind to be a part of a bigger library boost::(or
not boost)language_bind which will provide a generic for binding C++
with lua, ruby, python (and maybe other languages). This is still
being designed and absolutely no details have been though of. I still
think that someday I might get to it.

Second, after taking a closer look (though not a very detailed yet) I
noticed that it is a little different than what rubybinds aims at. The
memory management strategies, the exposing of classes and functions
and runtime instead of compile-time generated bindings. For now rice
looks like it is a lot slower than I thought rubybind would be.
Ofcourse since we're talking about ruby, we get to a whole new
dimension of "slow" :)

And last, I like creating this library and I still would like this c++
(and ruby) excersise for my personal development. I will be using
rubybind for a game that I'm developing in ruby with a light c++ 3d
engine of mine, that will be entirely exported to ruby. By all means I
would fill more confident using rubybind than rice when creating the
game. You know... you own code is always more usable and supportable.

There might be a lot of other differences but I still haven't taken a
detailed look at rice.

I must admit that I am kinda dissapointed (I honestly thought I was
filling an empty niche in software developent with rubybind). Anyway
rubybind won't be abandoned for now.

Thanks for the replies