Numpy and Common Lisp?

[Robert Goldman]

Yes, that's my concern. I take it as given that the CL community does 
not have the resources to fully reimplement numpy from scratch.  If one 
grants me that premise, then building a FFI to numpy would be a better 
investment of hours than cloning it.

Arguably investing in py4cl would be better than either. But other than 
for personal satisfaction, cloning is a dominated choice.

I was hoping to hear that someone had gone over the C API with CFFI.

That leads me to a follow-up question: am I right that SWIG no longer 
ships with a back end for emitting CFFI stubs?  It seems like it was 
dropped sometimes between versions 3 and 4.

Best,
R


On 10 Apr 2023, at 16:16, Marco Antoniotti wrote:

> IMHO, it'd be easier and effective to band up together and FIRST write 
> a
> proper API specification and THEN implement it in CL.
>
> But Common Lispers are like academics: the "herding cats" applies.
>
> Cheers
>
> Marco
>
> PS I am a Common Lisper AND an academic.  You know what I mean...
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 10, 2023 at 9:09 PM Robert Goldman <rpgoldman at sift.info> 
> wrote:
>
>> Has anyone taken the Numpy C API and created a CFFI library based on 
>> it?
>> I see some attempts to clone it in pure CL, but I would guess that 
>> just
>> using it through its API might be easier and more effective.
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.common-lisp.net/pipermail/pro/attachments/20230410/9cc45b3a/attachment.html>