On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Sturla Molden <stu...@molden.no> wrote: > Den 25.03.2011 19:03, skrev Robert Bradshaw: >> >>>> Looking at Guido's comment, Cython must be able to compile all valid >>>> Python if this will have any chance of success. >> >> Good thing that's our goal (pending an actual definition of "all valid >> Python.") >> > > In lack of a Python language specification it can be hard to tell > implementation details from syntax. It sounded though as if Guido was > worried about Cython's compatibility with Python, and maybe the Cython dev > team's attitude to Python compatibility.
We are very concerned about Python compatibility. > Also don't think Cython's main strength in this context was properly > clarified in the debate. It is easy to over-focus on "speed", when it's > really a matter of "writing Python C extensions easily" -- i.e. without > knowing (a lot) about Python's C API, not having to worry about reference > counting, and the possibility of using Python code as prototype. Cython is, > without comparison, the easiest way of writing C extensions for Python. > FWIW, it's easier to use Cython than ctypes. Using Cython instead of the C > API will also avoid many programming errors, because a compiler does fewer > mistakes than a human. Those aspects are important to communicate, not just > "Cython can be as fast as C++". That is a good point. On the other hand, I don't see re-implementing working C modules written, though probably valuable from a maintenance point of view, as compelling of a use case. - Robert _______________________________________________ cython-devel mailing list cython-devel@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/cython-devel
