[zeromq-dev] Canonical language for the Guide

[Pieter Hintjens]

OK, I'll put together some sketches of what the DSL might look like.
I'm thinking an XML model that generates pseudo-code and then C/CZMQ,
and we can try other backends later.

-Pieter

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Arnaud Kapp <kapp.arno at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I also believe that using C/CZMQ is a good choice. CZMQ offers an easy
> to use C API which I believe mostly everyone would understand.
>
> I don't know much about code generation. I believe that example in
> other languages should be written using a specific binding: this often
> more than just
> a wrapper around the low-level C API. I have no idea how well this can work.
>
> Basically I am against using any other language other than the
> low-level C API or CZMQ. My reasoning is that if you understand the C
> API code, you should understand
> any binding API. I don't think the opposite is true, especially wrt
> messages vs parts, context management and socket linger. This is
> because bindings hide this stuff,
> but I don't think hiding stuff is good in a reference guide.
>
> Anyway, the current guide is very well written and extremely useful
> and I trust the next one will be too !
>
> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 9:13 PM, Brian Knox <bknox at digitalocean.com> wrote:
>> I think that C/CZMQ is a reasonable choice.
>>
>> I'm intrigued by the idea of being able to generate examples in different
>> languages from a DSL - but concerned it might add confusion instead of
>> clarity.
>>
>> Brian
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Gregg Irwin <gregg at pointillistic.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Pieter,
>>>
>>> PH> What's the best canonical language?
>>>
>>> PH> My personal preference is C/CZMQ, which is high level and clean.
>>>
>>> PH> My second choice would be a high level modeling language.
>>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> While my only daily C is the vitamin, I think C is the best choice. As
>>> you say, you will never please everyone. Of course, I'm also a huge
>>> fan of DSLs and code generators. The issue I see in this context is
>>> that the bindings, and 0MQ itself, are moving targets. The upside is
>>> that the old generators are still valid even as you create new
>>> templates when change comes.
>>>
>>> If you can keep the DSL/MOP simple enough, it could be a win even if
>>> only used for the C examples. The more general it needs to be, the
>>> more gratification may be delayed. Do you have thoughts or examples on
>>> the language or output side already gestating?
>>>
>>> -- Gregg
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> zeromq-dev mailing list
>> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
>> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kapp Arnaud - Xaqq
> _______________________________________________
> zeromq-dev mailing list
> zeromq-dev at lists.zeromq.org
> http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev