JavaCPP VS rust-cpp

JavaCPP and presets for working with JNI

In the meantime you might want to check out JavaCPP: https://github.com/bytedeco/javacpp

Maybe you can use JavaCPP?

Here is the code for JNI, which uses the prebuilt JavaCPP library to call the getpid function. We don't have to write all the manual C binding code and rituals as the JavaCPP library already does it.

Javacpp is the best ffi library of all https://github.com/bytedeco/javacpp

As for our approach, we maintain a library called javacpp: https://github.com/bytedeco/javacpp which proves a python wheel like experience where we distribute natively optimized c/c++ code (and even cuda accelerated code) as jar files on maven central. We also are able to develop with a python like experience by passing pointers around and other low level constructs directly allowing optimizations that you typically only get in c/c++.

https://github.com/bytedeco/javacpp

* it maps naturally and efficiently many common features afforded by the C++ language and often considered problematic, including overloaded operators, class and function templates, callbacks through function pointers, function objects (aka functors), virtual functions and member function pointers, nested struct definitions, variable length arguments, nested namespaces, large data structures containing arbitrary cycles, virtual and multiple inheritance, passing/returning by value/reference/string/vector, anonymous unions, bit fields, exceptions, destructors and shared or unique pointers (via either try-with-resources or garbage collection), and documentation comments*

I did not try myself, but for JNI maybe this could make lives easier? https://github.com/bytedeco/javacpp

I am the current passive maintainer of the cpp crate: https://github.com/mystor/rust-cpp

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).

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.

https://github.com/mystor/rust-cpp <- not a transpiler, but almost as good

Otherwise, C would never have achieved success in MS-DOS when all the stuff it was binding to at the time required blocks of inline assembly. (Crates like rust-cpp do exist, which allow "inline C++" in the same way that C++ allows inline assembly.)

Actually, you can make inline C++ macro in Rust. Similar unholy monstrosities exist for inline python, inline C, inline SQL, inline HTML,...

Here is a more serious project that allows to embed C++ code directly in your Rust code: https://github.com/mystor/rust-cpp

Don't underestimate the power of procedural macros: https://github.com/mystor/rust-cpp

Alright, thanks for all your ideas! I also found this mystor/rust-cpp, which apparently allows inline c++ as opposed to cxx. Having yet to try out any of these, I like the idea of inline code more. Thought now I feel I need to brush up my skills a bit more to try this stuff out.