You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Just my experiences as a first time user of this library while I'm digging through the library itself, the tutorial, etc:
Currently, it is not obvious what the difference between C++ and C++ Dynamic bindings is (Same for C and C dynamic).
My first idea was that it could be related to the internal usage of dynamic_cast or something like that, but it seems like this is not the case.
Am I correct assuming that dynamic refers to the way the library is loaded (dynamically or statically linked)? The C++ dynamic bindings will have all the dlsym bits in it, whereas the normal C++ binding assumes static linking?
If that is correct, I propose the following changes:
Add a new Linking type column in the Feature Matrix: Bindings table that (either dynamic or static)
Clarify that most of the bindings are implicitly dynamic - I think it's a bit confusing that C and C++ have variants without the suffix (static linking) and with the dynamic suffix (dynamic linking), whereas the other language like Python or Pascal are just implicitly dynamic without the suffix.
If you're not using the library for the first time this may seem obvious, however to me as a first time library user it was not.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Just my experiences as a first time user of this library while I'm digging through the library itself, the tutorial, etc:
Currently, it is not obvious what the difference between
C++
andC++ Dynamic
bindings is (Same forC
andC dynamic
).My first idea was that it could be related to the internal usage of
dynamic_cast
or something like that, but it seems like this is not the case.Am I correct assuming that
dynamic
refers to the way the library is loaded (dynamically or statically linked)? TheC++ dynamic
bindings will have all thedlsym
bits in it, whereas the normalC++
binding assumes static linking?If that is correct, I propose the following changes:
Linking type
column in theFeature Matrix: Bindings
table that (eitherdynamic
orstatic
)dynamic
- I think it's a bit confusing that C and C++ have variants without the suffix (static linking) and with thedynamic
suffix (dynamic linking), whereas the other language like Python or Pascal are just implicitly dynamic without the suffix.If you're not using the library for the first time this may seem obvious, however to me as a first time library user it was not.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: