Re: Describing a native SDK in a sane manner.

[Kevin Clancy <kclanc@...>]

On 8/14/2013 12:25 AM, Jon Akhtar wrote:

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Kevin Clancy <kclanc@gmail.com> wrote:

Love Studio[1] receives type descriptions of native APIs from XML files. I chose this approach because it is direct; a direct type definition seems preferable to an imperative, untyped program which a type can be inferred from.

I think this is my take-away. The inference idea was ok, but it broke down after a certain point. For the specific case of external API's I need to use a method that is more reliable.

Well, as steve said, it has merit in that users may find it useful to have a user-friendly API definition that they can browse included in their project. I still think that I prefer using direct type definitions to inferrable code, but it's important not to forget that there is a spectrum of happy medium approaches that could be taken. LDT, for example, has a complete type definition language embedded in comments.