Andreas Otto wrote: > if you wrote one language interface you can write every language interface
This is like saying: if you used one programming language, you can use every programming language. "Use" is different from "master" or "appreciate". > -> the tasks are allways the same... just the language-specific-names > are changing That's the typical SWIG problem: you can generate wrappers for tons of languages, mostly automatically. But none of them will feel 'native' to the users of each of the target languages (well, possibly excluding C and Java here). As the author, you write a wrapper once (and maybe keep maintaining it), but every user of the wrapper will have to get along with its API that was copied into his/her language from another one. And there are usually a lot more users than authors. I'm not undervaluing your work. It's good to have many, many library bindings for Python. But having a "good" one would be even nicer. Stefan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
