On 9 Apr 2008, at 06:56, Ronald Oussoren wrote: > > On 3 Apr, 2008, at 15:46, has wrote: >> >>> it would be nice to have complete bindings to the bits of >>> Carbon that still make sense. >> >> Yes, although I'd repeat my earlier suggestion that the most >> economically viable way to provide Carbon bindings would be to create >> ObjC wrappers for the Carbon APIs of interest. > > I'm far from convinced that this is true.
If you use bridgesupport/bgen/whatever to generate ObjC wrappers then ObjC users, Python users, Ruby users, Perl users, etc, etc. all benefit. If you generate Python wrappers, then only Python users benefit. It's a question of reaching the widest number of users with the least duplication of effort. Reaching ObjC users is particularly important, because sooner or later the existing Carbon APIs are going to get wrapped for ObjC anyway. If you target ObjC now, there's a good chance that your wrappers will become the de-facto standard there and everywhere else. If you target individual scripting languages, eventually someone else will create ObjC wrappers and then you've got two different standards fighting for users' attention. Regards, has -- Control AppleScriptable applications from Python, Ruby and ObjC: http://appscript.sourceforge.net _______________________________________________ Pythonmac-SIG maillist - Pythonmac-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pythonmac-sig
