Browse thread
What does Jane Street use/want for an IDE? What about you?
[
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: | Jon Harrop <jon@f...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] What does Jane Street use/want for an IDE? What about you? |
On Wednesday 05 November 2008 16:33:43 Jérémie Dimino wrote: > Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com> writes: > > I'd forget about that and just focus on making the whole of Qt4 available > > safely from OCaml in any form first. Even this is an unsolved problem in > > the OCaml world! > > I suggest an idea. I know that Qt4 offer some facility to export > objects trough DBus [1]. So one can write a small C++ application that > allow other applications to create Qt objects and export them, then > use Qt in ocaml via DBus. > > Here are the advantages i see: > > - the C++ code and the ocaml code would run in different processes, so > we do not have to care about all the C++isms of Qt in the ocaml > application. > > - this would make Qt available to any languages that have DBus. > For ocaml i am currently writing a pure ocaml DBus implementation [2]. Yes, that's exactly the kind of loose binding I would opt for. Good thinking! There's still the question of how to write the C++ bit. Longer term, generating C++ at run-time using the LLVM's CLang project might be an alluring option but I'd still value process separation as long as unsafe languages are in the mix. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e