On 26 February 2013 16:34, Eli Bendersky firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I'm cautiously +0.5 because I'd really like to see a strong comparison case being made vs. ctypes. I've used ctypes many times and it was easy and effortless (well, except the segfaults when wrong argument types are declared :-). I'll be really interesting in seeing concrete examples that demonstrate how CFFI is superior.
I'm probably the same, mainly because I've successfully used ctypes in the past, but I've never used cffi. That's something I need to rectify.
One point which I *think* is correct, but which I don't see noted anywhere. Am I right that cffi needs a C compiler involved in the process, at least somewhere? If that's the case, then it is not a suitable option for at least one use case that I have, writing quick hacks involving the Windows API on a machine that doesn't have a C compiler installed. Another possible case would be writing zip-safe code - if cffi involves a compiled C extension, it won't work when loaded from a zipfile.
In general, a proper, unbiased comparison between cffi and ctypes would be useful.
BTW, I assume that the intention is that both cffi and ctypes remain available indefinitely? Nobody's looking to deprecate ctypes?