this is why i said "�Theoretically of course its possible , but someone would need to��implement this to make it easy to do and currently AFAIK none has.".�

Please note I was talking about Pharo.

Even if you take into account Slang , pharo is not compiling to C, it has actually a completely�different�ideology to C. �C/C++ does what it does because it favors raw performance, Pharo does what it does because its favors ease of use , simplicity and flexibility. So its�definitely�doable technically but the questions is "do you REALLY want to do this". The sort answer NO with the exceptions depending on the situation. Because you�don't�want to further complicate your�life.�

On the issue of�embedding�I think its a good option to have but something I rather avoid. If you want to know why , then read this very well written article for python�http://twistedmatrix.com/users/glyph/rant/extendit.html. To sum up extending is just better than�embedding�because it allow you to put focus on your language of choice and take full advantage of its merits.�

Blender the 3d app , written in C/C++ , embeds python for its addon architecture. Python makes the addons and also manages the GUI. I can tell you there are clear advantages to have blender as �python library instead of�embedding python inside blender. It would offer a lot easier�customization�of blender. But since all developers��of Blender are C/C++ developers ,�embedding�seemed like an "obvious" solution to them. Mostly because they saw python as a third class citizent in their app. But with blender addons�popping�up like mushrooms , python has played such a central role to Blender that now it compromises 12% of the 1 million lines of code , blender's code base. 12% might not seem much but once you figure out that python is generally 2-5 times less verbose than C/C++ it become a huge number.

Take also to account the world in general move towards dynamic languages mainly because they make life easier and more�manageable. For me its far more important to improve Nativeboost and create high quality documentation �for it even before considering�embedding�pharo.�


On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Friedrich Dominicus <frido@q-software-solutions.de> wrote:
kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> writes:

> Sort answer is no , Pharo does not try to replace C/C++. CAD plugins
> are indeed dlls and you will need C/C++ for that. I only Know Free
> Pascal as another language to generate DLLs but even in that case its
> extra work.
>
> So if you look for the most direct solution then Pharo wont cut it and
> probably most other programming languages.
>
> Theoretically of course its possible , but someone would need to
> implement this to make it easy to do and currently AFAIK none has.
>
> Bare in mind that DLLs are strictly a C/C++ invention and definitely
> not how highly dynamic languages like Pharo work so there is no direct
> need for Pharo to do such thing cause it would complicate the
> workflow.
I don't this is entirely true. AFAIKT Except Smalltalk can be used for
generateing DLLs. However they are "compiling" to C AFAIKT. I'm quite
sure that one can use ObjectArts Smalltalk also to generate niche Active
X and I bet also shared libraries.

Regards
Friedrich