4 ms·
I can't even begin to describe how timely this project is to me. I'm working on a research project that had chosen C++ over Python for performance reasons. We s
by yzmtf2008 11y ago
I can't even begin to describe how timely this project is to me. I'm working on a research project that had chosen C++ over Python for performance reasons. We started with boost and later decided to ditch it because, well, it's boost.
Later when we decided to provide a Python binding, I find myself in the same place all over again -- we might have to use boost for the binding. Luckily I haven't written anything yet and spotted this library on HN :)
- entilzha 11y agoSimilar situation here. Working on a research project that uses C++ for MPI/RDMA/performance, but we would like to provide bindings in a more user friendly language
- lqdc13 11y agoWhy not Swig2?
- frozenport 11y agoYou could expose the user to a c-style header?
- stinos 11y agoSimilar situation here but a bit too late for us :] We want C++ with Python on top, and evantually able to run on some RTOS. CPython didn't quite cut it in how easy it was to get running on small platforms (if it sees a windows compiler it assumes there's a registry etc, go figure) but luckily we found http://micropython.org/ http://micropython.org/ which has enough of the Python 3.4 syntax yet is small, well written and C99. But because it's rather 'young' there are no binding solutions so we quickly had to come up with one ourselves. (quickly because at the time we still had to decide whether to really go with MicroPython or not) Result is here https://github.com/stinos/micropython-wrap https://github.com/stinos/micropython-wrap and the similarities with the way better written PyBind11 are still striking so I guess we didn't do that bad of a job. Though we're definitely going to look into how PyBind11 solved keyword arguments (never got into that).