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
It occurred to me that we could generate bindings using the same rust code base for
python (pyo3 for binding and maturin for packaging)
node.js (yarn for packaging with napi-rs for native bindings and packaging)
C (cbindgen for bindings and <your-choice-here> for packaging like conan or vcpkg or both and more)
Java (jni-rs for bindings and maven for packaging)
The python, node.js, and java bindings would only work for Linux (32 or 64 bit).
I haven't explored the C or Java ideas, just throwing that out there. I have been exploring the python and node ideas (in a different project).
To use C bindings in Arduino builds, we'd have to ship the library with generated header file(s) and pre-compiled binaries (*.a files compatible with any supported architectures -- mostly variations of arm-none-eabi for newer chips). But I'm not sure how feasible that would be, given complications like an RTOS or other multi-tasking implementations.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
It occurred to me that we could generate bindings using the same rust code base for
The python, node.js, and java bindings would only work for Linux (32 or 64 bit).
I haven't explored the C or Java ideas, just throwing that out there. I have been exploring the python and node ideas (in a different project).
To use C bindings in Arduino builds, we'd have to ship the library with generated header file(s) and pre-compiled binaries (
*.a
files compatible with any supported architectures -- mostly variations of arm-none-eabi for newer chips). But I'm not sure how feasible that would be, given complications like an RTOS or other multi-tasking implementations.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: