3 ms·
Isn't this a pretty trivial case of exploration vs exploitation? Clearly we need both. The more interesting question for me is why we still don't have a widely
by fauigerzigerk 8y ago
Isn't this a pretty trivial case of exploration vs exploitation? Clearly we need both.
The more interesting question for me is why we still don't have a widely adopted approach to sharing libraries across languages.
The most promising approach I have seen in recent decades was Microsoft's COM. But it has declined along with Microsoft's clout.
Unfortunately, current industry leaders don't seem to be interested in this problem at all.
- zzzcpan 8y ago> why we still don't have a widely adopted approach to sharing libraries across languages We have C, lots of languages use C libraries. Pick a random language and it probably has OpenSSL bindings.
- fauigerzigerk 8y agoThat's great for sharing libraries written in C. It doesn't generally solve the problem of reusing libraries across languages though.
- sevensor 8y agoNot only that, we have the Java and .NET runtimes, both of which can be used from many languages. I'd say, along with C, that makes three widely adopted approaches to sharing libraries between languages. Furthermore, C libraries don't even have to be written in C. It's far from unheard-of to use a more powerful language like a lisp or Ocaml to write a C library.
- Svenskunganka 8y agoMaybe the GraalVM is what you're looking for? https://www.graalvm.org/ https://www.graalvm.org/
- kazinator 8y ago> widely adopted approach to sharing libraries across languages For platform libraries we do; it's called FFI. Your language can use openssl or libxml or whatever, so can mine. It is more general than COM; COM is a specific ABI (that we can target with FFI). Language-specific libraries are tied to language semantics, because language-specific objects pass across language-specific calling boundaries. We don't think about using Python dictionaries from Guile Scheme and such.