4 ms·

You left out the explanation from your quote. The full is: > Rust is not that fast beacuse it needs to copy data; using Pyo3 objects would probably lead to sim

You left out the explanation from your quote. The full is: > Rust is not that fast beacuse it needs to copy data; using Pyo3 objects would probably lead to similar results as cython, but with an added library. "It needs to copy data", because it's converting Python objects into Rust objects and back again. As the full quote states, it could be written in a different way, although that would make the code look really weird. In this benchmark there is also no normal C++ involved. There is only Cython using some C++ ints, but operating on Python lists. And that's not handled by writing C++ code that operates on Python structures, but writing Python code in Cython in a "C++ mode". Apples to oranges.

volta83 6y ago
> although that would make the code look really weird. Not it wouldn't? Using Pyo3 is arguably the most idiomatic way of interfacing Rust with python. The "added library" cost mentioned as an excuse not to use it is literally the 1 second it takes me to write `cargo add pyo3` . They didn't do this because it would make their claim that "Julia is the better language for extending Python" kind of moot. They started from the conclusion that they wanted to have, and worked their way backwards towards implementation and data that would support it.
- yakubin 6y ago
  > Not it wouldn't? I'll defer to your knowledge on that. I generally don't work with Python. I've only looked into interfacing C# with Rust and it looked crazy, so that's where I'm coming from. But yes, it's pretty clear that the results are more a consequence of what's in the source files than the languages used (if we can even say that e.g. C++ was used at all).
  - hobofan 6y ago
    > interfacing C# with Rust AFAIK, there is no library that achieves a similar idiomatic interoperability between Rust and C#, like PyO3 for Python.
remram 6y ago
What is the "added library" though? PyO3 is already used to wrap, and is in fact the library doing the copy rather than providing a reference?

volta83 6y ago

> although that would make the code look really weird. Not it wouldn't? Using Pyo3 is arguably the most idiomatic way of interfacing Rust with python. The "added library" cost mentioned as an excuse not to use it is literally the 1 second it takes me to write `cargo add pyo3` . They didn't do this because it would make their claim that "Julia is the better language for extending Python" kind of moot. They started from the conclusion that they wanted to have, and worked their way backwards towards implementation and data that would support it.

yakubin 6y ago
> Not it wouldn't? I'll defer to your knowledge on that. I generally don't work with Python. I've only looked into interfacing C# with Rust and it looked crazy, so that's where I'm coming from. But yes, it's pretty clear that the results are more a consequence of what's in the source files than the languages used (if we can even say that e.g. C++ was used at all).
- hobofan 6y ago
  > interfacing C# with Rust AFAIK, there is no library that achieves a similar idiomatic interoperability between Rust and C#, like PyO3 for Python.

remram 6y ago

What is the "added library" though? PyO3 is already used to wrap, and is in fact the library doing the copy rather than providing a reference?