Hi, On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 10:18 PM, Christopher Jordan-Squire <cjord...@uw.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Sturla Molden <stu...@molden.no> wrote: >> >> >> Den 18. feb. 2012 kl. 05:01 skrev Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com>: >> >>> On 2/17/12 9:54 PM, Sturla Molden wrote: >>>> We would have to write a C++ programming tutorial that is based on Pyton >>>> knowledge instead of C knowledge. >>> >>> I personally would love such a thing. It's been a while since I did >>> anything nontrivial on my own in C++. >>> >> >> One example: How do we code multiple return values? >> >> In Python: >> - Return a tuple. >> >> In C: >> - Use pointers (evilness) >> >> In C++: >> - Return a std::tuple, as you would in Python. >> - Use references, as you would in Fortran or Pascal. >> - Use pointers, as you would in C. >> >> C++ textbooks always pick the last... >> >> I would show the first and the second method, and perhaps intentionally >> forget the last. >> >> Sturla >>
> On the flip side, cython looked pretty...but I didn't get the > performance gains I wanted, and had to spend a lot of time figuring > out if it was cython, needing to add types, buggy support for numpy, > or actually the algorithm. At the time, was the numpy support buggy? I personally haven't had many problems with Cython and numpy. > The C files generated by cython were > enormous and difficult to read. They really weren't meant for human > consumption. Yes, it takes some practice to get used to what Cython will do, and how to optimize the output. > As Sturla has said, regardless of the quality of the > current product, it isn't stable. I've personally found it more or less rock solid. Could you say what you mean by "it isn't stable"? Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
