Hi, On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Maciej Fijalkowski <fijall at gmail.com> wrote: >> Make cffi less buggy (check the tracker for new test cases ;-), faster >> (closer to swig type wrappers), and easier to use than ctypes, and I am sure >> there will be interest. > > I would say it's already fulfilling those three, but I suppose you should > try for yourself. I don't think the first is fulfilled so far, as we found various issues on various Linux and non-Linux platforms (and fixed them, so I suppose that release 0.1.1 is coming soon). But I agree with Fijal about speed and ease of use. Like SWIG it generates wrappers in the form of a CPython C extension with built-in functions, so I suppose the performance is similar to SWIG and not ctypes. Well, SWIG wrappers typically have custom logic written in C, whereas in cffi this logic is typically written as Python code, so I suppose it ends up being slower (on CPython; on PyPy small wrapping functions are inlined and have little cost). But the same argument can be pushed further to "why did you use a slow language like Python to write your app in the first place", which I hope we agree is bogus :-) A bientôt, Armin.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4