Re: [C++-sig] new to python; old to C++

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 10:42 PM, Alan Baljeu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 3:32 AM, Alan Baljeu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> My first impression of Py++ is that it generates stuff for Boost.Python to >>> use to connect >>>Python to C++. To get it going I also need to intro

Re: [C++-sig] new to python; old to C++

on Sat Nov 01 2008, Paul Melis 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 >> mig

Re: [C++-sig] new to python; old to C++

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 2:11 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > on Sat Nov 01 2008, Paul Melis 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 >

Re: [C++-sig] new to python; old to C++

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Thomas Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 2:11 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> on Sat Nov 01 2008, Paul Melis wrote: >> >>> Gustavo Carneiro wrote: There's an interesting question about whether it's better to u

Re: [C++-sig] new to python; old to C++

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Mathieu Malaterre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Thomas Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 2:11 PM, David Abrahams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> on Sat Nov 01 2008, Paul Melis wrote: >>> Gustavo Carneiro

Re: [C++-sig] new to python; old to C++

On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Paul Melis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 was curious about the claims of SWIG's inef

Re: [C++-sig] new to python; old to C++

Greg Landrum wrote: > On Sat, Nov 1, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Paul Melis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> 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 wa

Re: [C++-sig] new to python; old to C++

Intersting discussion, but if the time spent crossing the language boundary becomes rate limiting (irrespective of the wrapping tool used), the design of the system is questionable IMO. We use C++ as a way to accelerate calculations that are rate-limiting if implemented in Python, i.e. to imple