Hey there! There are some alternatives, some like automatic generation like Swig, Boost, etc, some like Pyrex, I prefer to write Python extensions in C using the standard Python C-implementation API. PyGame, being written in C, is also easy to access. As for C++, I don't know of any specific C++ API's, but then again I don't use C++ at all so I haven't looked. There's also the option of doing the reverse scenario, embedding instead of extending, you'll have to see what fits your project best.
/Peter On 2008-11-05 (Wed) 08:29, Matt Pearson wrote: > i agree, does the wrapper have a name, or is it on the python/pygame sites > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 8:13 AM, René Dudfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > yeah, best to use both! Use each tool where it is best at - and get > > best of both worlds! > > > > cu, > > > > On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Peter Gebauer > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi guys! > > > > > > I agree, just wanted to add that many iterations over trivial code > > benefits > > > (speed-wise) tremendously from being written in C and accessed in Python, > > or > > > at least that is my experience. :) > > > Guess you have to weigh it against the added complexity of having to > > compile > > > C code, maybe for mulitple platforms, etc. > > > > > > On 2008-11-05 (Wed) 13:57, Greg Ewing wrote: > > >> Patrick Mullen wrote: > > >>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:55 AM, Greg Ewing < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> The only way to improve speed is to re-code the cpu-intensive > > >>>> parts using something more efficent, such as C or Pyrex. > > >>> > > >>> Or, of course, write better python code if possible in those parts. > > >> > > >> Yes, certainly -- finding a better algorithm is always > > >> the best form of optimization! > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Greg > > >> > > > > >
