Browse thread
A labltk book?
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | skaller <skaller@u...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] A labltk book? |
On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 16:23 -0400, Brian Hurt wrote: > The problem as I understand things is that C++ doesn't play nice with > any language that is not C++ or explicitly designed to work with C++ > (cue Skaller). This is especially true if you use the fancy features > of C++ like templates and operator overloading, which Qt does. Which > makes it much easier to use in C++, but much harder to bind to any > other language. Can't speak for Qt, but otherwise Brian is quite correct. Even dumbed down C++ doesn't work well as a target language due to a large number of 'non-orthogonalities' where some of the few good invariants C provides are lost. Unfortunately ISO C99 also trends that way for C as well. -- John Skaller <skaller at users dot sf dot net> Felix, successor to C++: http://felix.sf.net