>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
Wow. Somehow I wasn't aware of that. It will be better to continue work from there, I think. On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Nick Wellnhofer <[email protected]>wrote: > 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 > >
