rubybind library

[prizrak6]

Hey.

I'm currently developing a C++/Ruby binding library, called rubybind.
(If you know luabind, you'll know what I aim at) It's open source,
under the MIT license. Currently it's in a pretty early stage of
development but is has something (barely) functional to offer.

Feel free to check it out.

here it is: https://sourceforge.net/projects/rubybind/

And yes, this is pretty much advertizing... I hope you're not offended.

 

[Tom M]

Hey.

I'm currently developing a C++/Ruby binding library, called rubybind.
(If you know luabind, you'll know what I aim at) It's open source,
under the MIT license. Currently it's in a pretty early stage of
development but is has something (barely) functional to offer.

Feel free to check it out.

here it is:https://sourceforge.net/projects/rubybind/

And yes, this is pretty much advertizing... I hope you're not offended.

have you seen rice yet? It seems like it could be similar...

 

[Jason Roelofs]

have you seen rice yet? It seems like it could be similar...

I second the look at Rice (Ruby Interface for C++ Extensions).

In fact, I myself began work on this exact type of library, called
rubybind, of all things. That was of course until I was pointed to
Rice. Rice isn't reliant on boost, has been in development for some
time (internally by Paul Brannan and others) and only recently
officially released.

http://rice.rubyforge.org

Jason

 

[prizrak6]

Actually I did know about rice, but the last thing I had read of it
was pretty long ago, and I guess I though it was abandoned or at a
very early stage of development.

Nevertheless I won't abandon rubybind. This is for several reasons.

First, I intend rubybind to be a part of a bigger library boost:or
not boost)language_bind which will provide a generic for binding C++
with lua, ruby, python (and maybe other languages). This is still
being designed and absolutely no details have been though of. I still
think that someday I might get to it.

Second, after taking a closer look (though not a very detailed yet) I
noticed that it is a little different than what rubybinds aims at. The
memory management strategies, the exposing of classes and functions
and runtime instead of compile-time generated bindings. For now rice
looks like it is a lot slower than I thought rubybind would be.
Ofcourse since we're talking about ruby, we get to a whole new
dimension of "slow"

And last, I like creating this library and I still would like this c++
(and ruby) excersise for my personal development. I will be using
rubybind for a game that I'm developing in ruby with a light c++ 3d
engine of mine, that will be entirely exported to ruby. By all means I
would fill more confident using rubybind than rice when creating the
game. You know... you own code is always more usable and supportable.

There might be a lot of other differences but I still haven't taken a
detailed look at rice.

I must admit that I am kinda dissapointed (I honestly thought I was
filling an empty niche in software developent with rubybind). Anyway
rubybind won't be abandoned for now.

Thanks for the replies