[C++-sig] new to python; old to C++
dave at boostpro.com
Sun Nov 2 14:11:48 CET 2008
on Sat Nov 01 2008, Paul Melis <paul-AT-pecm.nl> wrote:
> Gustavo Carneiro wrote:
>> There's an interesting question about whether it's better to use
>> boost.python or SWIG. I've been using boost.python for years, so I
>> have a lot invested in it, but if I were starting from scratch, I
>> might consider using SWIG because it gives you the flexibility to
>> generate wrappers for languages other than Python.
>> On the other hand, SWIG generates ugly and inneficient code, at least
>> for the Python case.
> I'd like to see proof of the claim that SWIG's wrapper code is
> inefficient. In my experience it is not more inefficient than what, for
> example, boost.python via Py++ provides.
I doubt that SWIG generates less efficient code. However, I would be
surprised if SWIG's is as careful about dealing with lifetime and
ownership issues that are crucial to writing Pythonic and un-crashable
bindings as Boost.Python is.
More information about the Cplusplus-sig