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

[Mathieu Malaterre]

On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Mathieu Malaterre
<mathieu.malaterre at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
> http://web.archive.org/web/20070703071726/http://people.web.psi.ch/geus/talks/europython2004_geus.pdf
>

http://europython-develop.zope.nl/conferences/epc2004/slides/science/geus_wrap_perf

$ gunzip -c geus_wrap_perf > out.pdf

2cts