Talk:Language binding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


I would like to have this article talk about language binding between langauge independent APIs and concrete language APIs. I have written the following section but didn't want to submit it because of the poor quality.

From an Interface Definition Language to a specific language[edit]

Special abstract languages, so called IDL interface description languages, are used to define language independent APIs. E.g. W3C defined the DOM API using the OMG Interface Definition Language. The DOM API is a standard for how to represent xml trees as internal data structures in object oriented languages. Any specific language, e.g. Python, can then make a language binding between any method, type etc. in the DOM API to a corresponding concrete Java entity.

What does the first line mean?[edit]

Is it possible to re-write the first line so that it is easier to read? (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"that language" seems unclear[edit]

I don't understand "a binding to the library must be created in that language". "That language" is which language, the language the library was written in or the other language? (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

misleading claim[edit]

"Another is the impossibility of implementing certain algorithms efficiently in high-level languages."

C is a high-level assembly language. Period.

The claim was inserted without a reference or ditation and will tend to mislead neophytes concerning C and algorithm implementation.

in the past, similar claims were common for assemblers.

Claims initially made for C++ were often, in fact, i.e., in engineering practice, confounded by the facts of errors in production code. See issues of complexity and maintainability.

See algorithms implemented in Oz, Mercury; see original work on constraint-based resolution; see parser generation and the folly of re-inventing the wheel in C rather than relying on optimizing compilers.

Perhaps "some simple algorithms" would be more appropriate, as some C-style iterative implementations of algorithms are notoriously inefficient while "elegant" in that high-level language.

Perhaps we might better say "some types of algorithm in some higher-level languages" until a citation or reference is supplied. (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)