On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 9:06 AM Lisandro Dalcin <dalc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Jul 2022 at 16:41, Jacob Faibussowitsch <jacob....@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> > Please don't take my words as advocacy for C++ >> >> I’m going to pretend like I didn’t read this :) >> > > Whatever the final decision is, PETSc should keep providing a plain C API. > C is lingua franca, C++ is not. Many other programming languages have > runtime FFIs mostly based on the C ABI guarantees (Java, Python, MATLAB, > Rust, Julia, etc). C++ may be great for development, but I do not consider > it great for crossing language boundaries. > > Maybe the right approach for petsc4py is to first get nice and modern C++ > bindings implemented by wrapping the C interface. And then map these C++ > bindings to Python. > My crystal ball says that such a C++ binding would eventually be thrown away just as in the case of MPI. Matt > -- > Lisandro Dalcin > ============ > Senior Research Scientist > Extreme Computing Research Center (ECRC) > King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) > http://ecrc.kaust.edu.sa/ > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener https://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/ <http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~knepley/>