Freddie Witherden <[email protected]> writes: > I do have a couple of comments/queries. Firstly, what are the > advantages to maintaining both BPL and CFFI implementations of > PyOpenCL? It is my understanding that CFFI also supports CPython and > so could a single common code base not be used to target both PyPy and > CPython?
I agree that maintaining two versions over an extended period of time makes no sense. But for a transition period, the BPL version is proven code that has been in use for a couple of years, whereas the CFFI version is not. That means the CFFI version can't go and replace the BPL version without at least a few months of real use in the wild by volunteers who run their code against it and report success/problems/failure. (Recall that it's currently still incomplete and therefore not quite ready for this stage of testing yet.) Longer-term though, only one of these versions will live. If all goes according to plan, that will be the CFFI version, but it could still also be the BPL version if it turns out that the CFFI version has issues that can't be fixed. > Secondly, how does the CFFI code compare to the existing BPL code? > Specifically, is it cleaner or more maintainable? I ask this as > someone who is highly sceptical about the utility of PyPy within the > scientific community. I respect that you're sceptical. Note that I'm being careful to not bet the farm on CFFI/PyPy outright--hence the transition/validation period I mention above. I find the two code bases pretty similar in complexity, and they're both written with maintainability in mind. > I do quite like the idea of spinning the array wrappers out into their > own package, however. Great--thanks for your comments! Andreas
pgpAppHjk67Gr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ PyOpenCL mailing list [email protected] http://lists.tiker.net/listinfo/pyopencl
