> The performance benefits are really achieved by incrementally changing your Python code to something that looks a lot more like C(++) I completely agree. Cy

> The performance benefits are really achieved by incrementally changing your Python code to something that looks a lot more like C(++) I completely agree. Cython can become quite attractive if your alternative is "write a python extension library by hand in C / C++". I first started using Cython after doing exactly that, writing my extension library in C, then realising that Cython might save a lot of work in generating the bindings and packaging/distribution -- it did, and it ran at exactly the same speed as my pure C library with hand crafted python bindings. After that I've been pretty excited about Cython. If you've got a python program that needs to do a core of compute-heavy work, if you were to optimise this by writing a C / C++ library for python to use, the work would be: (i) think hard about how the library design will enable performance, (ii) implement that high performance library in C / C++ , (iii) figure out the interface so that python can call into the library, and (iv) figure out how to package and distribute the library so it can be used by python programs. Cython doesn't really help with parts (i) designing for performance or (ii) writing that high performance code. But it helps a lot with parts (iii) and (iv), generating Python bindings and producing wheel archives that can be managed by existing python package management tooling.