RE: embed or swig?

Oh I suppose this would help:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/wxruby/

:)

Sincerely,

Bob

%% -----Original Message-----
%% From: Bob Calco [mailto:[e-mail]]
%% Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 8:31 AM
%% To: ruby-talk ML
%% Subject: RE: embed or swig?
%%
%%
%% I'm working on a wxWindows port for Ruby (called, predictably, wxRuby),
%% using Swig. Its odd but the last three days I've discovered Swig
%% and it is
%% really a form of black magic. While not quite as straightforward as the
%% example that set off this discussion, it will not be anywhere near as
%% difficult as coding it all by hand.
%%
%% I have a site at sourceforge set up (no code uploaded yet, but that will
%% change soon) and a proposed site at savannah. I've already
%% started on this
%% and I hope to upload some code soon. Folks who want to
%% contribute should let
%% me know and as soon as I decide in the next few days which site
%% finally to
%% host it at (looking like sourceforge, since I already have it up there),
%% we'll get a team going.
%%
%% Sincerely,
%%
%% Bob Calco
%%
%% %% -----Original Message-----
%% %% From: Tom Sawyer [mailto:[e-mail]]
%% %% Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2002 7:28 AM
%% %% To: ruby-talk ML
%% %% Subject: Re: embed or swig?
%% %%
%% %%
%% %% i was just reading over a little of the swig docs and HOLY
%% CODING! from
%% %% my limited reading it appears that once a swig interface definition is
%% %% created you can generate a wrapper for any of the supported scripting
%% %% languages. is that true? i imagine there might be a need to make some
%% %% minor changes for a large/realistic source. but perhaps not? with this
%% %% then it should be rather trivial to wrap a number of
%% libraries for ruby
%% %% that already have swig interfaces for python. can anyone confirm this?
%% %%
%% %% if what i gather from the above holds, then a wxWindows
%% binding for ruby
%% %% should be pretty sraight foward for anyone with ruby and swig
%% %% experience. the same holds true for ParaGUI, and certainly a number of
%% %% other apis.
%% %%
%% %% please confirm speculations.
%% %%
%% %% ~transami
%% %%
%% %%
%% %% On Sat, 2002-08-03 at 21:36, [e-mail] wrote:
%% %% > "Massimiliano Mirra" <[e-mail]> wrote
%% in message
%% %% > news:[e-mail]...
%% %% > > On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 07:56:21AM +0900, Phil Tomson wrote:
%% %% > > > We started off wanting to do unit testing of our C++
%% %% classes so I tried
%% %% > > > out Swig1.3.13 to wrap our classes.  Let's say you have
%% %% three classes,
%% %% > > > we'll call them Line, Polygon and Point and let's say you
%% %% want to have
%% %% > > > them live in a namespace called Geo.  You would define an
%% %% interface file
%% %% > > > as an input to swig that would looks something like:
%% %% > > >
%% %% > > > %module Geo
%% %% > > > %{
%% %% > > > #include "Line.h";
%% %% > > > #include "Polygon.h";
%% %% > > > #include "Point.h";
%% %% > > > %}
%% %% > > > %include "Line.h";
%% %% > > > %include "Polygon.h";
%% %% > > > %include "Point.h";
%% %% > > >
%% %% > > > //end of Geo.i (probably not completely right, I'm doing from
%% %% > > > memory)
%% %% > >
%% %% > > Wait a minute.  Do you really mean that, after you've
%% %% written your C++
%% %% > > classes, you just feed nine lines to Swig and after some
%% %% crunching you
%% %% > > have them available in Ruby?  Or are you just simplifying?
%% %% > >
%% %% > > Massimiliano
%% %% >
%% %% > That is not simplifying at all for basic functionality.
%% %% Certainly depending
%% %% > on your C/C++ code and how you want it to act in Ruby could
%% %% mean you must
%% %% > learn more advanced SWIG features.
%% %% >
%% %% > SWIG in the last few months has made great strides with C++.
%% %% You used to
%% %% > have to do lots of tricks to fool it into doing the right
%% %% thing, but now
%% %% > some pretty complex C++ features and types are supported out
%% %% of the box:.
%% %% > There are also new library functions for automatically
%% translating STL
%% %% > vectors into Ruby arrays, and more on the way.  SWIG is being _very_
%% %% > actively developed right now.  It's a great tool with very
%% responsive
%% %% > developers.
%% %% >
%% %% > We've been using C++/Ruby exactly how Phil is describing for
%% %% over a year,
%% %% > and the progress SWIG has made in that time is astounding.
%% %% Lyle Johnson has
%% %% > made sure that the Ruby module is one of the best/most
%% up-to-date SWIG
%% %% > modules for supporting new features in the SWIG core.  (We
%% %% also wrap the C++
%% %% > classes into Perl and Tcl using SWIG as well... but those
%% %% bindings are not
%% %% > as popular with the users of our toolkit despite the size of
%% %% the knowledge
%% %% > base in those two languages where I work).
%% %% >
%% %% > Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't things missing that
%% %% would be nice
%% %% > (even if some aren't possible)... i.e., a unified SWIG
%% %% interface for setting
%% %% > up callbacks from C++ into the target scripting languages, for
%% %% example...
%% %% > support for faking multiple inheritance in Ruby by adding
%% wrappers for
%% %% > secondary/tertiary ancestors directly into the subclass's Ruby class
%% %% > methods...
%% %% >
%% %% > Using SWIG is really quite easy... managing shared
%% libraries that are
%% %% > dynamically loaded into various versions of perl/ruby/tcl on mutiple
%% %% > platforms... well that can get really ugly (especially when
%% %% one of those
%% %% > platforms is evil HPUX with its horrible, horrible dynamic loader).
%% %% > Certainly the embedding approach simplifies that aspect,
%% %% especially if you
%% %% > statically link Ruby (or whatever scripting language you
%% are using SWIG
%% %% > for).
%% %% >
%% %% >
%% %% >
%% %% >
%% %% --
%% %% ~transami
%% %%
%% %%
%%
%%
%%