[PySide] PySide - Qt5 - Swig

[anatoly techtonik]

On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Fabien Castan <fabcastan at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>  I personally like the idea of using SWIG to build Qt bindings. SWIG is
>>>> the only tool I have ever used to interface C++ and Python, and it seemed
>>>> fine. All of the alternatives to SWIG seemed worse.
>>>> For those who don't know, PyQt uses SIP. SIP is similar to SWIG in many
>>>> ways.
>>>
>>> Compared to PyQt, our binding creates bigger binaries, but it may be
>>> better with hand written rules... And we could discuss with SWIG guys on
>>> that point.
>>>
>>
>> "may be better" is a bad argument. Historically PySide used Boost, it
>> generated a lot of garbage too, and that's why Shiboken was born (correct
>> me if I wrong). The only problem with Shiboken maintainability is that it
>> is written in C++ and most PySide users with primarily Python background.
>> SWIG doesn't tackle this core flaw at all and may become an additional
>> hurdle that will bury the project even more.
>>
>> The good solution (tm) is not to rewrite Shiboken from scratch, but find
>> a way to gradually move the logic out of it into Python.
>>
>
> I don't want to hurt anybody.
>

=) That would be hard.


> I just want to find a way to see a Qt5 binding soon. If it's with Shiboken
> it's fine to me... but I can't help on that.
> I'm personally not interested to create yet another binding tool. I just
> want Qt5 available in python.
>
> Swig has become one of the most popular binding tool. It's really
> accessible for all people to create rules. This could help to extend the
> community around PySide. For example, I could help and some people around
> me too.
> IMHO, it's always the same problem in the open source world... the
> difficulty for communities to work together. There is always a lot of open
> source software to do same thing, but rarely a good one inside this
> profusion.
>
> Are people from Shiboken not interested to work on Swig? Why?
> I see the reason to eliminate boost python. Is there a reason to eliminate
> Swig?
>

I guess the same reason applies.
http://web.archive.org/web/20120311172636/http://www.pyside.org/docs/shiboken/faq.html

One of the reasons to switch to Python is to continue generating docs like
that. SWIG will never be able to generate something like this, and it would
be nice to make generated HTML available again. GitHub or Google Code
should do this.

Another reason. You said you're able to generate Swig rules from the .xml
files of Shiboken. Can you do the reverse?

 it would be pity to throw away all the hard work of developers on shiboken.
>>
>
> No, it could be a great opportunity to bring this expertise to SWIG! And
> make the world wonderful. ;)
> But I understand the history of SWIG with binaries sizes. I don't have the
> project with me, but I will check that and send you that information in
> detail.
>

Why not to bring expertise to Boost then? You again ignore the Py. side of
the arguments. In Python world ctypes is way more popular, because it
doesn't require compilation and binary blobs. I'd look into CFFI if you
really want to move new technology. We all want Qt5 in Python, but in
pythonic ways.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/pyside/attachments/20130113/93de7e3c/attachment.html>