Language InterOp Blog based on cppyy and Cling paper from 2023

[QuillPusher]

• High Level Blog Post to introduce to Language Interoperability, based on the following Paper:

• "Efficient and Accurate Automatic Python Bindings with cppyy & Cling" (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2304.02712.pdf)

• Date of the Blog is kept as the Date that the paper was published on. Later we can share this post on LinkedIn etc, using a #tbt (ThrowBack Thursday) or Feature Highlight type post

• tested on localhost:

[QuillPusher]

Hello @maximusron
Vassil suggested that you'd be an excellent candidate to review/contribute to this blog post 🚀
Please have a look 😎

[davidlange6]

some meta comments

• lets keep this positive. Instead of shortcomings, we should talk about the new functionality provided by our work. Its description is missing. Probably section 2 of the paper is a good source of information.
• The benchmarks need some more description. In particular, in the blog article the speedups up pitiful. However, they are actually really awesome because its in comparison to a numpy-enabled operation. The text in the article just above the same table is useful
• A conclusion is probably helpful.

[QuillPusher]

Thanks @davidlange6 for the insights. Please see the latest commit to review the requested changes.

[QuillPusher]

@maximusron I've added you as a collaborator to my fork of the website (branch: interop_blog_post) in case you would like to directly make edits to the post. Any feedback would help

[vgvassilev]

@maximusron ping.

[aaronj0]

@QuillPusher I have made some edits, can you send me the invite again?

[QuillPusher]

@QuillPusher I have made some edits, can you send me the invite again?

@maximusron Invite sent 👍
let me know if it works

[QuillPusher]

Thanks @maximusron for the changes.

@vgvassilev requested changes have been made. Please see if this looks good overall
CC: @davidlange6

[QuillPusher]

Hello @davidlange6
Did you get a chance to have a look at this? It is in much better shape than before 😅

[davidlange6]

i did, but unfortunately the text is now very circular and difficult to understand what was accomplished or enabled. I do not yet have a clear idea of how to progress with it. But I have three suggestions

• add a simple but real example of code that is now supported that wasn't before
• decide if the article is about adding numba support to cppyy or adding cppyy support to numba
• avoid meaningless statements like "advanced C++ features" in favor of specific ones like "you can now call a c++ function in python loops that numba can interpret"

[QuillPusher]

Thanks @davidlange6 , I'll look at this with fresh eyes to review the flow

[QuillPusher]

@maximusron , can you spot a suitable code example:

add a simple but real example of code that is now supported that wasn't before

P.s., @maximusron does the example presented in the paper qualify, or have you come across a better option?

[aaronj0]

@QuillPusher Yes this example should work, it is the more simple example

[QuillPusher]

Thanks @aaronj0 😎

Hello @davidlange6
Kindly review the following changes:

• Added the Code example suggested by Aaron
• Focused more on Achievements of the research
• Removed verbose sections about C++/Python
• Revamped the document structure with clear headings for better readability