undefined

points

[-]

Nope, they are Python bindings to native libraries.

PyTorch in C++ naturally gets little use, because most people don't want to use C++, and although possible, e.g. CINT, very few care about C++ REPLs.

Also these libraries only exist because Python cannot deliver on its own, like Lisp or Scheme, and needs such libraries in first place.

Even BASIC has better options to do machine code and system programming than Python, starting with the original Dartmouth BASIC.

by famouswaffles13 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I know what bindings are. A front-end to C++ for pytorch was only released from 1.0, literally 2 years later. The relationship is very clear here. There was no native C++ library. It was an afterthought. Even in instances where there was, like Tensorflow, functionally it was still an afterthought.

They are python libraries because people reached for those languages so they could continue work in python. They are there to serve python and nothing else. It's the same with Rust. It's by no means a C++ thing.

EDIT: Not saying this is always the case. Qt>Pyside is an example where it's both technically and functionally bindings, but the vast majority of the time they are serving python. Some don't even have a native library to speak of.

by pjmlp11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

For Python libraries they would be written in Python, eventually ctypes for syscalls.

Otherwise they are bindings to native libraries.

We can keep discussing in circles.

by famouswaffles11 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

>For Python libraries they would be written in Python, eventually ctypes for syscalls.

So if you can't call/use the 'library' from the 'native' language, it's still a library? Whatever floats your boat. Lol.

by samatman10 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

I think it’s actually reasonable to say that a Blub library should run on every implementation of Blub. So, GraalBlub and BlubBlub, not just CBlub.

Otherwise it’s just a sparkling FFI.

by Lumich1 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

[dead]