On Feb 23, 2014, at 05:16 , Open Nota <[email protected]> wrote:
> Thanks. That's why I'm asking - I've seen the docs state that the Clownfish
> is good for dynamically typed languages. But I would want to write bindings
> for the statically typed one - namely, Go. Is it worth the effort to mess
> with the Clownfish backend and bindings for the statically typed language?
> I certainly will ask more questions after I've acquainted myself with you
> links.
I think Clownfish should be useful for Go bindings, too. It doesn’t make many
assumptions about the host language and should work with any language that has
some support for OOP and can interface with C code.
Also, Clownfish isn’t designed to be a turn-key solution. It mainly helps with
the repetitive parts of writing language bindings. The rest has to be filled in
by the implementor. If you want to write a new language backend, you could
start with any code that can be generated from the Clownfish header files. It
might also make sense to create bindings manually first and then work backwards
to see where Clownfish can help to automate tasks.
And if you weren’t aware, Philip Southam already started to work on Go bindings
based on the Lucy C library:
https://github.com/philipsoutham/golucy
Nick
