> Besides, if we do, it would be better to try Pyrex or Cython, not C++, > since they allow easy incremental conversion, are easier to use, and > play much better with Python itself.
Yeah. BTW, on of the guys who is doing Cython (Robert) is sitting right next to me now. Cython is cool. But still you need to modify the original python source, the pypy's approach is better imho - but pypy is unfortunately not ready for production. Cython guys are really making sure it just works. And also it's very clean - the result of of Cython is one nice *.c file, which you just compile and you get one *.so file and that's it. Much better than SWIG, that creates a bloated and slow interface. BTW, if you use Debian, I created a preliminary deb package here: http://debian.certik.cz/ See the README.Debian inside for instructions how to easily use it in Debian. > P.S. premature optimization is the root of all evil (Donald Knuth) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimization_(computer_science) Very true. I think SymPy will be ready for it, when we find a robust, simple, general and a fast way how to do assumptions. On the other hand, I think it could be useful to have a simple C++ implementation of the very few basic SymPy classes. Too see how fast it is. And then compare it with doing the some in Cython for example. We may even code in it C. C is a nice language when you know what you want to do and how. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
