on Sat Nov 01 2008, Paul Melis <paul-AT-pecm.nl> wrote: > Gustavo Carneiro wrote: >> >> There's an interesting question about whether it's better to use >> boost.python or SWIG. I've been using boost.python for years, so I >> have a lot invested in it, but if I were starting from scratch, I >> might consider using SWIG because it gives you the flexibility to >> generate wrappers for languages other than Python. >> >> >> On the other hand, SWIG generates ugly and inneficient code, at least >> for the Python case. > I'd like to see proof of the claim that SWIG's wrapper code is > inefficient. In my experience it is not more inefficient than what, for > example, boost.python via Py++ provides.
I doubt that SWIG generates less efficient code. However, I would be surprised if SWIG's is as careful about dealing with lifetime and ownership issues that are crucial to writing Pythonic and un-crashable bindings as Boost.Python is. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ Cplusplus-sig mailing list Cplusplus-sig@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
