Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.170 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.170; envelope-from=kanzure@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f170.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EEF57CF9-5AFC-465B-ABA7-1B53118D6A5E@bitsofproof.com>
References: <CABm2gDo_sYjNWU6EEsKmOXt5uUu87Lj1oFzqio79MxSx2SYrNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<54DE7601.4070509@voskuil.org>
	<CABm2gDpt60B=Sf_2X9xt4fPH7x4fff7K4h36XfosHigV5tP+4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<54DF07A5.1060004@voskuil.org>
	<CABm2gDoS+XOR7Ugt91kNWNdvwsb1_Zb-aO0sma_Xps2Sx-0N5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<54DF2E80.5060506@voskuil.org>
	<20150214131320.GA26731@savin.petertodd.org>
	<3D4F2E23-CADE-4FE7-B960-3F79815E868C@bitsofproof.com>
	<20150215170228.GB21269@savin.petertodd.org>
	<E0CB8E24-C67D-48B1-8D9F-2B71BAF13446@bitsofproof.com>
	<20150219033205.GS14804@nl.grid.coop>
	<065C5F2E-FC1D-4994-A39A-9125D663FC71@petertodd.org>
	<EEF57CF9-5AFC-465B-ABA7-1B53118D6A5E@bitsofproof.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:03:48 -0600
Message-ID: <CABaSBawRXzeoHEvVBJK_JpvrtZq6tzhASRf3JLsz=skbrMq1QA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
To: Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>, Bryan Bishop <kanzure@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8fb1ecb2a7372b050f7167cd
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] On Rewriting Bitcoin (was Re:
 [Libbitcoin] Satoshi client: is a fork past 0.10 possible?)
Precedence: list

--e89a8fb1ecb2a7372b050f7167cd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Tamas Blummer <tamas@bitsofproof.com>
wrote:

> I  launched a Lighthouse project to add Java Language Binding to lib
> consensus. Let's turn the debate to a constructive vote.


First, I strongly disagree with voting here for reasons that I hope others
will elaborate on. Second, I think that squeezing all possible language
bindings into a project is also unproductive. What is it that the webkit
people did for this? I think they had gobject bindings, and then all of the
languages have their own gobject bridge to take advantage of that.
Naturally the downside here is that gobject means you have a gtk
dependency. A similar solution would be interesting and worth exploring,
though, especially if something similar without gtk exists.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507

--e89a8fb1ecb2a7372b050f7167cd
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On W=
ed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:22 PM, Tamas Blummer <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=
=3D"mailto:tamas@bitsofproof.com" target=3D"_blank">tamas@bitsofproof.com</=
a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0=
 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">I =C2=A0launched a L=
ighthouse project to add Java Language Binding to lib consensus. Let&#39;s =
turn the debate to a constructive vote.</blockquote></div><br>First, I stro=
ngly disagree with voting here for reasons that I hope others will elaborat=
e on. Second, I think that squeezing all possible language bindings into a =
project is also unproductive. What is it that the webkit people did for thi=
s? I think they had gobject bindings, and then all of the languages have th=
eir own gobject bridge to take advantage of that. Naturally the downside he=
re is that gobject means you have a gtk dependency. A similar solution woul=
d be interesting and worth exploring, though, especially if something simil=
ar without gtk exists.<br><div><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_signature">- B=
ryan<br><a href=3D"http://heybryan.org/">http://heybryan.org/</a><br>1 512 =
203 0507</div>
</div></div>

--e89a8fb1ecb2a7372b050f7167cd--