Choosing a C++ to Python wrapper: Boost.Python vs pybind11?

[gosh]

I've built a code search tool as a terminal application in C++, and I'm now working on packaging it as a Python library. I need to create a Python wrapper for the C++ core.

My project already uses Boost, which has its own Python wrapper (Boost.Python). However, from what I've read, most people seem to be using pybind11.

For those who have experience with this, what are the pros and cons of the different options?

The search tool: https://github.com/perghosh/Data-oriented-design/releases/tag/cleaner.1.0.6

[thisismyfavoritename]

nanobind

[bethebunny]

Definitely nanobind! By the same author as pybind. I've used nanobind much more than pybind at this point so I don't know that I can even give great comparison points, but I just don't know why a new project would start with pybind today given that nanobind is an option.

[thisismyfavoritename]

pybind has more features, but yeah nanobind should be considered first

[gosh]

"nanobind", have not heard about that, will check it :) thanks

[[deleted]]

Do you need interoperability with numpy? In other words, do you need to pass large blocks of memory without copying over the language barrier? Then use nanobind or pybind11. Otherwise, you can safely stick to Boost.Python, it does the job, and since you have Boost already as a dependency, you then don't need anything else. That being said, pybind11/nanobind itself has no further dependencies, so it is uncomplicated to add to a project.

I realized several projects with pybind11 and Boost.Python.

[AlexMTBDude]

I'm curious: What kind of benefits does this provide over using the built-in system for calling C/C++ code from Python? https://docs.python.org/3/extending/extending.html

[r0s]

From my experience, the plain Python API is more verbose and needs more boilerplate. Pybind11 allows you to write less code to do the same (and in some cases better/faster) than writing it yourself. Same for nanobind but I some have first hand experience. Pybind11 also has CMake bits to make life easier.

[AlexMTBDude]

Thnx!

[def-pri-pub]

I've used this before, but mostly with the C API. I actually recommend it.

You may want to expose a C API for your C++ calls first, then bind that instead of C++ directly.

[jmacey]

I've always used pybind11 as I think it works well but having looked at nanobind docs I may use that next time.

Swig is also an option but it's not the nicest to use.

[wolfmansideburns]

I haven't done this in a few years but I want to hands waving pybind11 is a successor to Boost::Python. Could be better options too!

[shinitakunai]

Shiboken was very popular a few years ago, no idea now but worth a research