On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Stefan Behnel <stefan...@behnel.de> wrote: > Hmm, I don't have the feeling that this discussion is leading anywhere > (especially not on this list). After all, it's quite possible to fire up a > PyPy runtime from a CPython runtime and have them talk to each other, > letting each one do what it's good at. That doesn't make PyPy a "compiler > for CPython", but at least it means that it doesn't fail completely to > integrate with the rest of the world. > > There are arguments for both sides, which means in dubio pro reo, I guess.
If anyone is interested in fast Python code that integrates cleanly with external C libraries, then the combination of PyPy and cffi (http://cffi.readthedocs.org/en/latest/) should definitely be on their list of candidates to consider. Now, it may be excluded quickly because there's a CPython extension involved in the project that isn't a trivial wrapper around an existing non-Python library (and thus can't be easily replaced with cffi), but that's no excuse for not at least considering the combination in the cases where it makes sense. Yes, the PyPy team and scientific users of Python have a long history of talking past each other (and abusing each other for the mutual lack of understanding). However, that's no excuse for deliberately ignoring the advantages JIT compilation can bring, when cffi has been created specifically to give PyPy a typesafe (and JIT-transparent) way to interface with any library that provides C bindings. Regards, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
