Creating a PyTypeObject (C implementation of python class) in C needs
much boring work. Actually, PyTypeObject is just a huge struct which owns
about 30 fields. It would explains why Python has no base class diagram.
Most Python classes just inherit root 'object'. In a deeper sense, Python's
type system would be much closer to 'Duck Typing' than Ruby, I think.
Anyway, it would be a pain in the ass to make a python class in C without
tools such as SWIG, pyrex and BoostPython.

I like Ruby way. Creating C extensions in Ruby seems much like OOP in C,
and so much like programming Ruby itself.

On 6/8/05, Curt Hibbs <curt / hibbs.com> wrote:
> Stephen Kellett wrote:
> > In message <c715e6405060313335c5be6c7 / mail.gmail.com>, Joe Van Dyk
> > <joevandyk / gmail.com> writes
> >
> >> 1)  C extensions allow us to easily integrate with external existing
> >> software, but I don't know how Perl or Python does in that respect.
> >
> >
> > Having recently written some Ruby and Python extensions I'd say they are
> > about the same level of complexity. The extensions I wrote did the same
> > thing for each language and took roughly the same amount of time. The
> > Python extension used a bit less code and was easier to write, but the
> > differences are trivial and not worth arguing over.
> 
> I like the way that Ruby extensions appear (to a Ruby program) to be a
> *real* Ruby object/class, no different than if I had coded it in Ruby.
> 
> I'm interested to know if the same thing true of Python extensions?
> 
> Thanks,
> Curt
> 
> 


-- 
http://nohmad.sub-port.net