From: ptkwt@...1.aracnet.com (Phil Tomson)
Date: 2002-09-19T03:09:55+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby and inline C or C++

In article <5174eed0.0209180802.5157d65@posting.google.com>,
Edward Wilson <web2ed@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Is this conceptial or real?  
>
>Ruby could be used as a macro language for real ($$ professional)
>code.  This would make writing testing tools and prototypes easy and
>viable using Ruby.  No doubt, this would bring Ruby into the fold of
>professional development shops much quicker.
>
>I'm with you, I have to invent hobby projects to use Ruby at this
>point.  All our work is in C++.  Something like this would make Ruby
>immediately useful for us.  Ruby's embeded API hasn't worked for me,
>and writing extensions takes too much time to justify for the uses we
>have for it.
>

As an aside (and I'm starting to sound like a broken record here, but I do 
really think it's a great tool so please forgive me) Have you tried Swig?
Swig ( http://www.swig.org) makes it easy to write C/C++ extensions
(Swig really shines with C++).  Instead of embedding Ruby into your C++, 
consider using Ruby as your 'main' to tie all of your C++ objects 
together (see an earlier thread called "embed or swig" for more details).  
I've used Ruby and Test::Unit to do C++ unit testing by 
wrapping all of our C++ classes with Swig - worked great.

Phil