On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 04:45:23PM -0500, Martin Blais wrote: > Plugins would probably have to be written in C++ (though the API would > be very simple, as it is now), but if possibly a Python API for them > would also be there (it might just slow down your processing a > bit).
Requiring end users to write plugins in C++ would be a major set back w.r.t. the current state of affairs. So, yeah, if you go that way (which is an understandable requirement if you notice that *some* plugins require considerable speedup) you should also have as a requirement that of *also* supporting native Python plugins. That way the trade-off between the flexibility of Python plugins and the efficiency of C++ ones will be up to users. You will have to pay the price of supporting multiple ways of writing plugins, but I speculate it will be entirely worth it in terms of user adoption. (I realize this kind of feedback is pointless until it turns into actual code, but you seem to be welcoming the discussion, so I bite :-)) Cheers -- Stefano Zacchiroli . [email protected] . upsilon.cc/zack . . o . . . o . o Computer Science Professor . CTO Software Heritage . . . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader & OSI Board Director . . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Beancount" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/20190219152344.ae323ewa6xyxgxt4%40upsilon.cc. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
