docs: compare the design difference with llcppg

[toaction]

Implementation for #23

[niupilot]

Documentation Review: llpyg vs llcppg Design Differences

I've completed a comprehensive review of the documentation comparing llpyg and llcppg design differences. Here's my feedback:

✅ Strengths

1. Clear Structure: Well-organized comparison across key areas (target language, symbol extraction, type handling, configuration, architecture)
2. Concrete Examples: Good use of code examples to illustrate differences between the two tools
3. Bilingual Approach: Chinese documentation appropriate for the target audience
4. Technical Accuracy: The fundamental differences between static vs dynamic language handling are correctly identified

⚠️ Issues Found

High Priority:

1. Line 65-67: The explanation of equivalent fields between configuration files contains grammatical issues and could be clearer:

   • "cflags 和 libs 字段的作用与 llpyg.cfg 中的 libName 字段作用等同" - This explanation oversimplifies the relationship
   • The comparison doesn't clearly explain that cflags/libs are compile-time flags while libName is a runtime module identifier

2. Line 16: Contains a grammatical inconsistency: "且具有一定难度" should be "且具有一定的难度"

Medium Priority:

3. Line 30: Missing context - the statement about class support improvement needs more explanation about current limitations

4. Line 72: The phrase "处理逻辑是接近的" could be more precise - "similar" vs "identical" distinction matters

Low Priority:

5. Line 83-84: Unnecessary blank lines at the end of the file
6. Line 14: Could benefit from explaining why Python lacks "统一的符号定义文件" compared to C/C++ headers

🔧 Suggestions for Improvement

1. Add Technical Context: Include brief explanations of why these design differences exist (static vs dynamic typing implications)

2. Expand Configuration Comparison: The configuration section could better explain the conceptual differences, not just field mappings

3. Future Roadmap: The document mentions future improvements (line 30, 67) but could benefit from a dedicated section on planned convergence or divergence

4. Code Example Consistency: Ensure all code examples follow consistent formatting and commenting styles

📋 Summary

This documentation successfully addresses issue #23 by providing a clear comparison between llpyg and llcppg. The content is technically sound and well-structured, though it would benefit from some grammatical refinements and expanded explanations in key areas.

The document effectively communicates the core design philosophy differences: llcppg's static analysis approach vs llpyg's dynamic reflection approach, which is the fundamental distinction driving all other differences.

Review completed ✅ - I've also provided specific code suggestions in the PR review for the highest priority issues.

👉 Want me to re-run this review? Just type /review in the comments! For more usage examples, visit CodeAgent GitHub Repository.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @toaction, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

此拉取请求新增了一份文档，详细比较了 llpyg 和 llcppg 这两个项目在设计上的主要差异。这份文档旨在帮助用户和开发者理解这两个工具如何根据其各自的目标语言（Python 和 C/C++）在符号信息获取、类型处理、配置文件和整体架构方面采取不同的实现策略。

Highlights

• 目标语言差异: llcppg 面向 C/C++ 静态类型语言，而 llpyg 面向 Python 动态类型语言。
• 符号信息获取: llcppg 通过静态分析 C/C++ 头文件获取符号，llpyg 则通过 CPython API 动态反射获取。
• 类型处理方式: llcppg 进行复杂的类型映射，而 llpyg 主要使用 "*py.Object" 作为通用类型。
• 配置文件对比: 详细对比了 llcppg 和 llpyg 配置文件的字段作用，指出其相似之处和不同。
• 架构设计异同: 阐述了两者在生成 LLGo Bindings 上的相似处理阶段，并强调了符号提取和类型处理上的主要差异。

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

这篇文档清晰地对比了 llpyg 和 llcppg 在设计上的差异，对理解这两个工具非常有帮助。我发现了一些可以改进的地方，主要涉及文档中的代码示例准确性和描述的精确性。具体来说，一个 JSON 示例存在格式错误，一个 Go 代码示例中的类型与描述不符，以及对配置文件字段作用的解释可以更精确一些。修正这些小问题将有助于提高文档的质量和准确性。

[niupilot]

Documentation review with specific improvement suggestions. The document provides a good comparison between llpyg and llcppg, but there are some grammatical issues and areas where clarity can be improved.