cbindgen VS cxx

Golang uses cgo to communicate with external C libraries and Rust uses FFI (Foreign function interfaces) to export C functions. Additionally, a library for automatically generating bindings can be used to generate the header files (.h). In our case, we'll only be exporting two C functions, so using cbindgen is overkill but we'll use it regardless because why not?  Firstly, we'll write the rust functions we want to export. We'll start by creating a new rust library:

[1]: https://github.com/mozilla/cbindgen

As a 2-step approach, you could also probably use https://github.com/mozilla/cbindgen and then Nim's native C FFI.

The tooling for the first kind -- calling Rust from another language -- is a bit less developed, and tends to rely on code generation that doesn't necessarily produce a natural C API. cbindgen, uniffi, cxx, and Diplomat all take this course.

There's also cbindgen for automating the generation of C headers once you've got your code in the right shape and you'll also want to read the Rustonomicon.

You can backport Rust standard library to C using https://github.com/eqrion/cbindgen .

Later we'll see what cbindgen essentially does is receive a configuration and a Rust library and then spit out a C header (.h) file. One might think that what cbindgen is doing might not be that special and can be done by hand. In which some cases that might be true if the project is simple enough. Though additionally as the cbindgen documentation states:

Fuck it, I'll take the bait. Rust allows for amazing C interop by allowing for exporting of C types as a dynamic library, like C. Unlike C, this still allows for Rust's advanced checking at compile time. librsvg is one such library that is being used in the GTK ecosystem that is also almost completely Rust. You can use tools like cbindgen to generate C bindings.

Or alternatively cbindgen to create the header file from the Rust source.

The easiest way to obtain the headers for the rust code is to use the cbingen library.

There are cxx and autocxx, what else do you propose to do?

I would like to see a comparison of how this compares to Rust. In terms of interoperability it has Cxx (https://cxx.rs) to offer safe bindings to C++ but also has great support for Android, Linux and many other systems. You don't even need to hack together Windows bindings (as explained in the blog post) because Microsoft offers official bindings (https://crates.io/crates/windows). I'm not sure if I'd call it a superpower if any potential interoperability has to be written to be used (compared to it already being available). Or rather, in comparison to what is interoperability a Swift superpower? Certainly not C++ or C which can be used in a far wider set of targets.

We selected Qt as a cross-platform solution. The C++/Rust interface is the clunkiest and ugliest part of the application, and rather complex because some state is shared between several windows in the GUI and several threads in the backend, and any component might modify that state at any time, and updates have to be transmitted to the other components without introducing inconsistencies. Using cxx [1] helped a little, though.

The project began in 2020, and I'm not sure what I'd choose as a GUI framework today – definitely not Qt Widgets, though.

[1] https://cxx.rs/

If the build process for the C library isn't too involved I recommend using cxx bridge (https://cxx.rs/) and letting cargo handle the build and linking. cxx basically allows you to describe the bidirectional interface (although it sounds like you only need 1 direction, which is fine too) in Rust code and it provides a "good enough" API for compiling C code inside the build.rs file.

The tooling for the first kind -- calling Rust from another language -- is a bit less developed, and tends to rely on code generation that doesn't necessarily produce a natural C API. cbindgen, uniffi, cxx, and Diplomat all take this course.

I would like to utilize OMPL's functionality in Rust code, so I want to call into OMPL C++ code somehow in Rust. I've seen two (non-mutually-exclusive) options so far: - rust-cpp, which allows you to write C++ code in Rust within the cpp!() macro. - cxx, which allows you to define both sides of the FFI boundary manually (as opposed to bindgen's automatic generation).

I'm not sure how to do this in cxx; issues like https://github.com/dtolnay/cxx/issues/447 suggest that this isn't settled yet?

I use non-vendored dependencies for the Buck build in https://github.com/dtolnay/cxx.

There's also the cpp and cxx crates for doing C++/Rust interop, but they probably aren't appropriate to use in all cases. The C ABI is definitely the safest way to go unless you're really trying to marry Rust and C++ code bases, not just writing library bindings.

There's also cxx (can't vouch for it personally but it claims to make things a lot easier) https://github.com/dtolnay/cxx