4 ms·
Sure, I've played around with it; still too complex and too static due to being natively compiled. I've mostly given up on the idea of driving applications fro
by sifoobar 8y ago
Sure, I've played around with it; still too complex and too static due to being natively compiled.
I've mostly given up on the idea of driving applications from a higher level language, I much prefer having C as a foundation and then embedding a more dynamic language that I have full control over. I like to call it reverse FFI :)
- srean 8y agoSo Guile, Lush, Lua, Tcl would be the other likely candidates. I do use Python but more as a remote control over C.
- sifoobar 8y agoYep, more or less. Though if you flip through Snigl's README, there's already plenty in there that these languages will never be able to do. I used to do that in Common Lisp, which has the only FFI I've come across that's even nicer than Python's. But it's backwards; once you're in a high level language, it's inconvenient and expensive to reach down. It makes a lot more sense to me to drive the whole process from C; not only do you have direct access to C; you also get to control the embedded world from the outside, which is about as meta as it gets.
- jacobush 8y agoIf you want a FFI that's arguably even nicer, look at PicoLisps: http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Call_a_function_in_a_shared_library#PicoLisp http://rosettacode.org/wiki/Call_a_function_in_a_shared_libr... (setq Display (native "/usr/lib/libX11.so.6" "XOpenDisplay" 'N ":0.0"))
- srean 8y agoJust in case my comment came out as "why are you working on Snigl ?" ... I was thinking aloud on what are some of the other languages that you might like. Snigl sounds pretty cool and fun.
- sifoobar 8y agoNo harm done; I'm doing this with or without, because it has to be done.