On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 12:28 PM, Jeremy Henty <onepoint / starurchin.org> wrote:
> On 2008-12-11, Jason Roelofs <jameskilton / gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'd ask that  if you already need to write and  compile a wrapper to
>> make a library work with FFI,  then why bother with FFI in the first
>> place?
>
> To  get portability  across different  Ruby implementations.   This is
> really my way of contributing to  FFI: it's really cool but it seems a
> little short of  actual applications.  I doubt I can  make it any more
> cool than  it already  is, but I  can do  something about the  lack of
> applications.
>
>> Rice / Rb++ will  get you a lot farther in less  time than trying to
>> hack your way into using the FFI library,
>
> I already have a  working toy FFI/C++ application, including callbacks
> that  hook  virtual C++  methods  back into  Ruby  and  it was  almost
> disappointingly  straightforward to  do.  I  suspect it  will  be less
> effort than  you make  out.  And if  I'm wrong  about that, I'll  be a
> sadder and wiser man.  Worse things happen at C, I mean sea.
>
> Thanks again for your help,
>
> Jeremy Henty
>
>

Makes sense. Looking forward to see what you get working, and if it's
as easy as you're saying, rb++ could be updated to also use this way
of wrapping.

More ways of making Ruby extensions easier to build is never a bad thing.

Good luck in your endeavors.

Jason