Re: Best place to discuss other lightweight libraries?

[Zvi Gilboa <zg7s@eservices.virginia.edu>]

On 04/23/2013 05:33 PM, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Daniel Cegiełka <daniel.cegielka@gmail.com> [2013-04-23 21:24:57 +0200]:
>> 2013/4/23 Strake <strake888@gmail.com>:
>>> So on that note, I deem Haskell would be a categorical category killer (^_^)
>> Haskell and musl - has anyone tried this combination? :) GHC is a
>> pretty big package.

One aspect of language binding that often goes under the radar concerns 
the method to create public API header files. For my own projects, I use 
a simple PostgreSql database that stores the definitions of constants, 
structures, functions, and also the public API header-tree, and then a 
few shell/psql scripts to generate the entire set of public API headers. 
As a matter of convenience, I normally enter the information into plain 
text files, which are then processed from the command line and populate 
the tables of the above database. In my experience, that kind of 
framework not only makes it easy to add binding for new languages, but 
also simplifies book-keeping tasks such as the splitting or joining of 
libraries, API consistency checks, etc.