4 ms·
Any JVM language or .NET language will take more to interface with native libraries, it’s not the same. Ocaml is very niche, I feel it’s an hard sell for a gen
by alanfranz 4y ago
Any JVM language or .NET language will take more to interface with native libraries, it’s not the same.
Ocaml is very niche, I feel it’s an hard sell for a general purpose language. Haskell, 3x that.
JS and TS, could be. But are they so much better than Python, if better at all?
- revelio 4y agoNative library interfacing isn't really Python's strong suit, interpreter plugins are quite painful to write. .NET has P/Invoke which is much nicer. JVM is getting Panama+jextract, which is the nicest yet. You can go straight from header files to pure Java bindings which don't need any extra native code at all. But it's not shipped yet :(
- baq 4y agoPython has had cffi since figuratively forever, so I’m not sure why you compare native modules to P/Invoke?
- revelio 4y agoMost important libraries with native components are using C extensions, not cffi.
- alanfranz 4y agoWhat is an “interpreter plugin?” Writing a Python C extension is not that painful, it’s quite well supported. And you’ve got cffi and ctypes as well.
- nequo 4y ago> Ocaml is very niche, I feel it’s an hard sell for a general purpose language. Haskell, 3x that. The impression about Haskell’s nicheness compared with OCaml prevails. But Haskell has a larger userbase and a larger library ecosystem than OCaml.
- alanfranz 4y agoA few years have passed since I last tried out both languages. Ocaml was sort of approachable, while Haskell required quite a different mindset imho, hence the “nicheness” from the general usage standpoint.