CD Burning Library

[Mike Hearn]

On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 13:29:13 -0500, Navindra Umanee wrote:
> I've said this often: You can write C++ code and export clean C bindings
> fairly easily.  That way you get the best of both worlds.  I believe FAM
> is an example of this.

This is true, but let's not lose sight of what matters most - manpower is
not infinite and the language the guys actually *writing* the library want
to use is probably the most important.

It's technically possible to bind most languages together, so if the guys
writing this lib wish to use C (and I have met many who prefer working in
C to C++ for whatever reason) then let them use C and we can bind later.

If they want to use C++ then let them do that as well, as long as there
are some C bindings around. People who say "you should use language Foo"
are just back seat coders otherwise, which is generally not helpful.

Having said that, it's probably best if we stick to mainstream languages
that are either open or free (C, C++, Python, Perl) for shared
infrastructure, simply because many people may have to maintain or hack
the code. Languages to avoid might be Lisp, Objective-C (sorry), C# and
Java.