>> I was thinking that it could be quicker to do prototyping in something >> like python, while having fast low-level functions in C. ... > > I have done a Python binding for the current libego. You can get it from > http://mjw.woodcraft.me.uk/2007/pyego/ . > > I did this as an exercise in using Pyrex (in fact, I ended up using a > variant called Cython) to wrap a C++ library. I'm not planning to use it > myself, and I'm not particularly planning to update it for future > releases of libego.
Hi, I wonder if you had anything to say on how the development was? I'm especially interested if you think if there was some aspect of the way libego is written that made it either hard work for you, or made it inefficient to wrap? In notes.txt you say the speed dropped from 70-75 kpps to 43 kpps when used in the wrapper (compared to 1 or 2.5 kpps in native python). And you say this is due to the overhead of converting and checking parameters? If you increase the number of playouts by a factor of 10 does it close in to 70kpps? I wondered if it might be possible that some compiler optimization got missed, or is just not possible, when built as an extension? Darren _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
