[C++-sig] new to python; old to C++

Mathieu Malaterre mathieu.malaterre at gmail.com
Sun Nov 2 15:51:59 CET 2008

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Thomas Berg <merlin66b at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 2:11 PM, David Abrahams <dave at boostpro.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>> --
>> Dave Abrahams
>> BoostPro Computing
>> http://www.boostpro.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cplusplus-sig mailing list
>> Cplusplus-sig at python.org
>> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cplusplus-sig
> At the Europython 2004 conference, there was a talk with the topic
> "Python Wrapper Tools: A Performance Study". I'm unable to find the
> pdf online now, it used to be located here:
> http://people.web.psi.ch/geus/talks/europython2004_geus.pdf
> It contains results from benchmarking wrapped calls with the different
> tools. Things may have changed now, of course, but SWIG was found to
> have larger overhead than the other alternatives. Also, SIP was found
> to be faster than boost python. I still have the pdf if anyone is
> interested.

it's available on web.archive.org



More information about the Cplusplus-sig mailing list