Would you like to provide calls to your library automatically and transparently?
How do you think about to use these tools?
Logged In: YES
>> Would you like to provide calls to your library automatically
What do you mean with automatically and transparently?
The major difference between ACDK and OpenCxx is that
OpenCxx is a translator/compiler.
The detailed information about the class internals are available
at compile time in OpenCxx. Basicly OpenCxx is similar to the
first C++ compiler
(CFront) which translates a language to another langauge.
ACDK with its meta compiler only add meta information to
ordinary C++ classes,
which can be evaluated at run time. Additionally ACDK
provides a inter-language
communication protocoll to enable calling C++, Java,
CfgScript, Lisp, COM, CORBA
classes/interfaces from C++, Java, CfgScript, List, COM,
CORBA, Perl, Python and Tcl.
Of course OpenCxx is much more powerfull, than a simple 1:1
It is tool to modify C++ with aspects or new syntax elements.
I thought about to use it to simplify the ACDK code (Not
needing "R"ClassName, using '.' instead of '->')
but the tool chain to generate a resulting binary seems to be
too complex if I introduce another,
I have done some researches on Intentional/Aspect oriented
languages, which is probably similar to OpenCxx
which I call AAL.
Unfortunatelly I haven't the time in the last year to bring it
into a useable
Logged In: YES
1. Do you think that ACDK users can become interested in an automatic mapping into your library?
2. How much intentions can be specified in compiled languages with your functions and methods?
3. How much overlapping does exist between your meta compiler and the tools "OpenC++" or "OpenJava"?
Log in to post a comment.
Sign up for the SourceForge newsletter:
You seem to have CSS turned off.
Please don't fill out this field.