From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 10261c,2dc0a43481058921 X-Google-Attributes: gid10261c,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,2dc0a43481058921 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: 114809,2dc0a43481058921 X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public X-Google-Thread: fb992,2dc0a43481058921 X-Google-Attributes: gidfb992,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-01-08 19:34:54 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-02!supernews.com!news.gv.tsc.tdk.com!news.iac.net!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.com!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail From: Gerhard =?iso-8859-1?Q?H=E4ring?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk,comp.lang.visual.basic,comp.lang.pascal.misc,comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: Free-NET Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 04:24:07 +0100 Organization: T-Online Message-ID: <3A5A8457.344AAD24@bigfoot.de> References: <93a584$n84$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <3A58AFF3.C67CAB11@bigfoot.de> <93bqlh$4v$1@nnrp1.deja.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: news.t-online.com 979010911 06 9331 BRCkzpTSfaMJU 010109 03:28:31 X-Complaints-To: abuse@t-online.com To: aotto2@gmx.de X-Sender: 320066699498-0001@t-dialin.net X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: de-AT,en-US,fr-CA Xref: supernews.google.com comp.lang.smalltalk:6066 comp.lang.visual.basic:1073 comp.lang.pascal.misc:1101 comp.lang.ada:3789 Date: 2001-01-09T04:24:07+01:00 List-Id: I do agree that wrapping C language libraries to scripting languages or other HLL is a task that's far from pleaseant. But 1) mqSeries doesn't seem to be free (not even free in the GNU sense, to which I happen to not agree, but just the ��� sense of free). That's euro :-) 2) I am in the process of interfacing a large C library to Ada, and sometimes I wish there was a COM equivalent for Unix. Then this would be a non-issue. 3) Even going the heavyweight way of using CORBA IDL seems to be easier than writing a wrapper for each scripting langage. At least you only have to write the wrapper once and it is guaranteed to work for each language that has a CORBA mapping. Personally I do not believe in automatic conversion � la SWIG, c2ada and the like. I am just starting to fiddle with CORBA, though. But I rather like it. Give me a CORBA implementation that connects code written in two different languages in in-process, and we can even forget about .NET altoghether. That would be the absolute killer, but I do not know if this would even be possible. Gerhard aotto2@my-deja.com wrote: > > Hi, > > the goal is the time you have to spend to write such an extension, > The CO-Process based implementation taks some days, the full > native implementation in TCL would take weeks or months. > ( just remember how difficult it is to write an DB wrapper for > a language ) > > on of the main features is that you write the CO-Process one > time and can reuse it for every language again and this is an > big improvement. > > mfg > > aotto :) > > > This looks really dumb (or is it just me?) why can't you use the > commands > > with out giveing them to some server? is this a really dodgy multi > threading > > with out multi threadding?(sort of the art of fighting with out > fighting? :) > > > > also what is this .net crud that is the "new" buzzword.. some one > mentioned > > it.. and I can't remember what he said :) some thing about a new > message que > > to replace interprocess communications or some thing? but it's for > multi > > computers or some thing? > > > > > > Sent via Deja.com > http://www.deja.com/ -- Sorry for the fake email, please use the real one below to reply. contact: g e r h a r d @ b i g f o o t . d e web: http://highqualdev.com