Hi All
This is a question intended for the Software designers and maintainers of
the GNURadio
Is there a specific reason / advantage of using SWIG as a C++ wrapper over
using other avaialble wrappers for C++ as Boost.Python , Cython etc
in the context of GNURadio ?
Thanks!
Joe
On 06/20/2014 10:34 AM, Joe D wrote:
This is a question intended for the Software designers and maintainers
of the GNURadio
Is there a specific reason / advantage of using SWIG as a C++ wrapper
over using other avaialble wrappers for C++ as Boost.Python , Cython
etc in the context
Hi Joe,
Disclaimer: I haven't been around when SWIG was introduced into GNU
Radio. These are somewhat educated guesses, but since I've had *some*
fun with SWIG, I wondered myself and this is what I rationalized.
- SWIG was around at the time GNU Radio was rewritten, which must have
been around
On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:42 AM, Marcus Müller marcus.muel...@ettus.com
wrote:
Hi Joe,
Disclaimer: I haven't been around when SWIG was introduced into GNU Radio.
These are somewhat educated guesses, but since I've had *some* fun with
SWIG, I wondered myself and this is what I rationalized.
I find that it's relatively-common for people to criticize existing codebases because they don't use library foo, or aren't written in vogue-language-of-the-week, or don't use exciting-new-framework-of-the-year. The nice thing about computer-sciencey things is that there's *always* a multitude of
On 06/20/2014 02:42 AM, Marcus Müller wrote:
- It was expected that if SWIG wasdone right, GNU Radio could end up
with multiple scripting language interfaces [2]. Nowadays, people are
content to use python, especially since we now (feels like yesterday)
have support to write gr::block classes
