On Fri, 30 Nov 2018 13:06:11 -0600 Neil Schemenauer <nas-pyt...@arctrix.com> wrote: > On 2018-11-29, Armin Rigo wrote: > > ...Also, although I'm discussing it here, I think the whole approach > > would be better if done as a third-party extension for now, without > > requiring changes to CPython---just use the existing C API to > > implement the CPython version. > > Hello Armin, > > Thank you for providing your input on this subject. I too like the > idea of an API "shim layer" as a separate project. > > What do you think of writing the shim layer in C++? I'm not a C++ > programmer but my understanding is that modern C++ compilers are > much better than years ago. Using C++ would allow us to provide a > higher level API with smaller runtime costs.
The main problem with exposing a C++ *API* is that all people implementing that API suddenly must understand and implement the C++ *ABI* (with itself varies from platform to platform :-)). That's trivially easy if your implementation is itself written in C++, but not if it's written in something else such as RPython, Java, Rust, etc. C is really the lingua franca when exposing an interface that can be understood, implemented and/or interfaced with from many different languages. So I'd turn the proposal on its head: you can implement the internals of your interpreter or object layer in C++ (and indeed I think it would be crazy to start writing a new Python VM in raw C), but you should still expose a C-compatible API for third-party providers and consumers. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
