Hi everyone I guess people want to know what is the current status of the ctypes backend for Cython, you can read the last status update there : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pypy-dev/2011-September/008260.html
Of course I'm available for any kind of questions :) Cheers Romain On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 11:14:08PM +0200, Stefan Behnel wrote: > Alex Gaynor, 17.10.2011 18:14: > >On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 12:01 PM, Stefan Behnel wrote: > >>Maciej Fijalkowski, 17.10.2011 17:46: > >> - pypy's numpy *will* integrate in some sort of way with existing > >>>C/fortran libraries, but this way *will* be different than current > >>>CPython C API. It's really just too hard to get both. > >> > >>Why reinvent yet another wheel when you could make Cython a common language > >>to write extensions and wrapper code for both? Even if that requires a few > >>feature restrictions for Cython users or adaptations to their code to keep > >>it portable, it's still better than forcing users into a complete vendor > >>lock-in on both sides. > > > >There's no fundamental objection to Cython, but there are practical ones. > > I'm very well aware of that. There are both technical and practical > issues. I didn't hide the fact that the Python+ctypes backend for > Cython is quite far from being ready for use, for example. > > > > a) Most of NumPy isn't Cython, so just having Cython gives us little. > > There has been the move towards a smaller core for NumPy, and we > perceive substantial interest, both inside and outside of the > Scientific Python community, in writing new wrapper code in Cython > and even in rewriting existing code in Cython to make it more > maintainable. Even generated wrappers were and are being rewritten, > e.g. to get rid of SWIG. Rewriting several hundred to thousand lines > of C code in Cython can often be done within a few days, depending > on test coverage and code complexity, and from what we hear, this is > actually being done or at least seriously considered in several > projects. It's helped by the fact that CPython users do not have to > make the switch right away, but can often migrate or add a module at > a time. > > I agree that simply supporting Cython is not going to magically > connect huge amounts of foreign code to PyPy. It just makes it a lot > easier to get closer to that goal than by inventing yet another way > of interfacing that is not supported by anything else. > > Also note that there isn't just NumPy. A relatively large part of > Sage is written in Cython, for example, especially those parts that > glue the rest together, which consists of huge amounts of C, C++ and > Fortran code. After all, Cython's predecessor Pyrex has been around > for almost ten years now. > > > > b) > >Is the NumPy on Cython house in order? AFAIK part of the MS project > >involved rewriting parts of NumPy in Cython and modularising Cython for > >targets besides CPython. And that this was *not* merged. For me to be > >convinced Cython is a good target, I'd need belief that there's an interest > >in it being a common platform, and when I see that there's work done, by > >core developers, which sits unmerged (with no timeline) I can't have faith > >in that. > > I understand that objection. The Cython project is largely driven by > the interest of core developers and users (now, how unexpected is > that?), and none of the developers currently uses IronPython or > PyPy. So, while we'd like to see Cython support other targets (and > the core developers agree on that goal), there isn't really a strong > incentive for ourselves to move it into that direction. It's a bit > of a chicken and egg problem - why support other platforms that > no-one uses it for, and who'd use it on a platform that's not as > well supported as CPython? > > I'd personally like to get the ctypes backend merged, but it's not > exactly in a state that is ready-to-merge soonish. There's a branch, > and Romain (our GSoC student for the project) is still working on > it, but obviously with much less time for it, so I'm sure he could > use another helping hand. > > https://github.com/hardshooter/CythonCTypesBackend > > The IronPython port is a different beast. It ran almost completely > in cloak mode, outside of the scope of the core developers, and it's > neither clear what the exact design goals were, nor what was > eventually achieved or in what status the code branch currently is. > The project itself died from sudden lack of interest on the side of > the financial supporters (MS) at some point, and it appears that > there is currently no-one who can easily take it over. Sad, but > really nothing to blame the Cython developers for. I'd be happy to > see it revived, if there is any interest. > > https://bitbucket.org/cwitty/cython-for-ironpython/overview > > Stefan > > _______________________________________________ > pypy-dev mailing list > pypy-dev@python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
