It is perhaps a question better considered later, but we will eventually need to decide on the native language(s) for the API. Having done that, we will have the option of defining bindings to the API for use from other languages.
For example, my initial, weak inclination is to target a native C99 API, or maybe a C90 one. In that case, do we plan for C++ wrapper objects? What about bindings for Fortran, Python, Perl, Ruby, and / or next year's language du jour? Or should we target the API at a different language to begin with?
Scope of the API - language support
Moderators: Brian McMahon, jcbollinger
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:41 pm
Re: Scope of the API - language support
jcbollinger wrote:It is perhaps a question better considered later, but we will eventually need to decide on the native language(s) for the API. Having done that, we will have the option of defining bindings to the API for use from other languages.
For example, my initial, weak inclination is to target a native C99 API, or maybe a C90 one. In that case, do we plan for C++ wrapper objects? What about bindings for Fortran, Python, Perl, Ruby, and / or next year's language du jour? Or should we target the API at a different language to begin with?
Since no one else has yet expressed an opinion on this topic, let us initially target a C99 API.
Although I favor bindings to other languages and maybe C++ wrappers, those questions do not need to be decided at this point.
Re: Scope of the API - language support
Microsoft VS C compatibility is also important. That would mean avoiding
conflicts with C89.
conflicts with C89.
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:41 pm
Re: Scope of the API - language support
yayahjb wrote:Microsoft VS C compatibility is also important. That would mean avoiding
conflicts with C89.
That's fine by me.