Well you'll just have to try Boost.Python. There is a pygccxml gui gets you started in about 15 minutes. You'll be able to see how well it groks your code and what that generated code is.<br><br>Boost is the best. People complain about it because they don't understand C++ templates and they don't realize how incredibly well designed it is.<br>
<br>If you don't know the basics it's this: Boost.Python uses meta template programming. This allows it to use the C++ preprocessor for what other binding systems generally write a custom tool for. Long compile times are not a real problem for anyone - it's easy to set up a compile farm and the benefit is that your runtime code is blazing fast.<br>
<br>In my opinion Boost is more sophisticated, SWIG, etc.. is more of a hack. Of course they all help you get the job done.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Philip Semanchuk <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:philip@semanchuk.com">philip@semanchuk.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
On Jun 4, 2009, at 4:23 PM, Brian wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
What is the goal of this conversation that goes above and beyond what<br>
Boost.Python + pygccxml achieve? Boost has published a variety of libraries<br>
that will be included into the next c++ standard. It's hard to imagine a<br>
better designed python/c++ interface library than Boost.Python. Further,<br>
pygccxml is amazing with regards to scanning your source code using gcc<br>
itself and then using that xml representation to write out the Boost.Python<br>
code. What more do people in this conversation want?<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Hi Brian,<br>
I've only experimented with SWIG (and ctypes for wrapping a C library). We're not yet sold on using SWIG to wrap our C++ libraries and so we're exploring alternatives. Before I started with SWIG, I did some research to see what other folks were using. The arguments I recall reading that swayed me to try SWIG before Boost were --<br>
- Boost involves more "magic" than SWIG which means it does a bit more work for you, but when things go wrong (i.e. interface won't compile or doesn't work as expected) it is very difficult to debug.<br>
- Boost-ed code requires a Boost runtime library. This isn't a showstopper problem, obviously, but it's a mark against since it adds yet another prerequisite to our install process.<br>
- Boost's generated code can take a long time to compile.<br>
<br>
I don't know what pygccxml adds to the equation, so perhaps some of those disadvantages disappear with Boost.Python + pygccxml versus just plain Boost.Python. If you'd like to expound on this, feel free. I'd appreciate the education.<br>
<br>
I don't know about what Boost (or any other tool) generates, but the interface I got out of SWIG was not pretty. That's no knock on SWIG -- I'm amazed at what it can do. Nevertheless the generated interface has all the charm of a Babelfish translation. I imagine lots of autogenerated code looks "babelfish-ed": meaning is preserved, albeit crudely, but all the idioms are lost and it's eminently clear that it was not created by a native speaker.<br>
<br>
Until there's an interface generation tool that can build an interface that makes the wrapped library look completely Pythonic, then choosing a tool will be a matter of choosing which compromises you want to make. As long as that's true, I think there's room for multiple library-wrapping packages, just like there's room for more than one programming language in the world.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br><font color="#888888">
Philip<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</font><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Thomas Heller <<a href="mailto:theller@python.net" target="_blank">theller@python.net</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Philip Semanchuk schrieb:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi Thomas,<br>
We're weighing options for accessing C++ objects via Python. I know of<br>
SIWG and Boost; are there others that you think deserve consideration?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I haven't used any of them myself. A common suggestion is SIP,<br>
less known are pybindgen and Robin. But there may be many more,<br>
and others with more experience might have much more to say about them.<br>
Also there is Roman Yokavenko's pygccxml which has a lot of stuff.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I've been happy with ctypes in my limited exposure to it and would<br>
love to find a way to make that work. This thread has been very<br>
interesting to me.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Unfortunately there is no solution in sight, with ctypes.<br>
--<br>
<a href="http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list" target="_blank">http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>
-- <br><div class="im">
<a href="http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list" target="_blank">http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list</a><br>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
-- <br><div><div></div><div class="h5">
<a href="http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list" target="_blank">http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>