[C++-sig] SWIG vs Pyste (was: Re: [Implementation] Calling wrapped functions, converters, policies)

[Niall Douglas]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 20 Sep 2003 at 3:48, Prabhu Ramachandran wrote:

>     ND> I've gone further though and have a python script which scans
>     ND> the include directory of the C++ library, generates a pyste
>     ND> file for each one which has changed since last invocation ND>
>     using a customisable rule set defining differences and then ND>
>     invokes pyste. This means the total maintanence cost is merely ND>
>     maintaining the return policies file - everything else is ND>
>     totally automated.
> 
> Interesting, but what prevents you from generating SWIG interface
> files in similar manner?

Because getting python to parse C++ is tough. Boost.Python & Pyste 
does that for you with a real C++ compiler.

>     ND> I should also that I haven't looked at SWIG in the last few
>     ND> months and when I did, it was purely in evaluation terms - not
>     ND> for serious bashing. So I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure as
>     ND> a general rule I'm right.
> 
> Well, in my personal evaluation I've been a more successful with SWIG
> in less time than with Pyste.  I've wrapped about 90 odd classes.
> Sure, the code I've wrapped is *nowhere* near as complex as the Boost
> library but its something and a decent data point for me.  This is not
> to say that Boost.Python is not good enough, its probably just me but
> hey I would not be on this list if I didn't think highly of
> Boost.Python and Pyste.  The only reason I am replying on this thread
> is that I think you are being a little too dismissive of SWIG and that
> goes against my (admittedly limited) experience.

I should clarify my statements then - I completely agree that SWIG is 
an excellent tool and for years has provided and still provides the 
optimum way of generating cross-language bindings. I cannot praise 
the tool enough.

What I was doing was saying why I personally chose Boost.Python over 
SWIG based on the needs of this particular library. I did not intend 
to diss SWIG or say it was inferior. In fact I most certainly would 
not choose Boost.Python for other solutions because in those SWIG is 
stronger and more importantly, I actually understand SWIG and how it 
works whereas all this metaprogramming stuff is still beyond me. And 
I find it very frustrating working with software which I don't 
understand :(

Cheers,
Niall





-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: idw's PGP-Frontend 4.9.6.1 / 9-2003 + PGP 8.0.2

iQA/AwUBP2uju8EcvDLFGKbPEQIeWQCgjw+pzyAMEwM/Nd3m7PB8y/ZTM4EAn1iV
k9J7+SMtv8oy/MPw31/NaZPr
=clxU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----