On 6 Jun 2009, at 22:05, Michael Bruschkewitz wrote:
> I just want to remove the need for dealing with all those interface- 
> issues.
> If I understood ruby-ffi description, there is a need to know which  
> types/byte sizes are used in the interface. Further sequence and  
> alignment.
> Also there is a need for knowing how F77 (weird example, I know)  
> handles parameters, global data, function names etc.
>
> Using converters:
> If there is one developer (ex.: mathematician) which knows F77 and  
> another developer which knows Ruby are working in one team - none of  
> both would need to know how dynamic libraries are created or what a  
> dynamic library in detail is or if they exist on that particular  
> used platform at all. The converter could hide all this knowledge,  
> thus allowing the developers to concentrate on the solution of  
> project-related problems.
>
> This interface knowledge is not related to particular projects, but  
> to languages. There is only the need for some common interface  
> format. How interfaces are exported/imported could be completely  
> transparent to the developer. Such an converter needs to be created  
> only once per language.


This is a naive assumption as it ignores the fact that many languages  
either have loose standards or no standard at all, therefore the  
amount of work required to implement such converters could be many  
orders of magnitude greater than that required to learn an FFI  
extension such as ruby/dl or ruby-ffi.


Ellie

Eleanor McHugh
Games With Brains
http://slides.games-with-brains.net
----
raise ArgumentError unless @reality.responds_to? :reason