Assume the following is true:
- I am using a hobby-level teaching robot.
- The robot’s operating system is a flavor of Linux.
- The robot’s functionality is implemented as a series of Python files containing classes and methods that are included in whatever program you want to create.
- Also assume that all user-generated programs are in Python.
- Any other languages that might be used, (like JavaScript), are expected to interface to Python, use the Python classes, and generally be well behaved in a python environment.
Problem:
Because Python is a rapidly evolving language, interfaces, classes, and methods written in an older version of Python may not work in newer versions because of dependency changes. (i.e. The difference between Python 3.6 and Python 3.13 where the functional dependencies for Python 3.13 won’t work with Python 3.6 code.)
After careful consideration, it has been decided to re-create all the robot functionality in another language, like C++. This decision was based on the fact that some low-level code is already written in C++.
Observation:
In Python, because it’s an interpreted language, everything is “visible” and nothing is compiled into an inscrutable binary blob. A running program can pick-and-choose what parts of a text file to run and/or include.
However, other languages like C++ are compiled languages, and the result of compilation is a binary blob that is immutable. (i.e. once compiled, it cannot change unless re-compiled.)
Question:
Is it possible to create a C++ implementation of the various robot functionality libraries that currently exist in Python such that:
- Individual classes and methods inside them are visible?
- These libraries can be included and called within existing Python code in a way that uses the same API method and class names, (i.e. ROBOT.move(forward, 20cm)) so that pre-existing code can run without being re-coded?
- Can this be done “as if” it were still Python based, hiding the fact that all the functionality is now in C++? This would allow existing programs written to be re-used and would avoid confusion.
ChatGPT:
Yes, it is possible to implement the robot functionality in C++ while meeting the criteria you described, using techniques that allow seamless integration with Python and maintaining the existing API. Here’s how this can be achieved:
- Make Individual Classes and Methods Visible
To make C++ classes and methods visible to Python, you can use a tool or library to create a bridge between the two languages. The most common options include:
- Boost.Python: A powerful library that allows you to expose C++ functions, classes, and objects to Python. It handles much of the complexity of interfacing the two languages.
- Pybind11: A lightweight, modern alternative to Boost.Python. It is simpler to use and supports C++11 and beyond, making it an excellent choice for exposing C++ to Python.
- SWIG (Simplified Wrapper and Interface Generator): A tool that generates wrappers to interface C++ with Python (and other languages). It requires a bit more setup than Pybind11 but can handle complex scenarios.
- Maintain the Existing API
You can design the C++ implementation to replicate the existing Python API. This can be achieved by:
- Creating C++ classes and methods that mirror the Python class and method names.
- Using the bridging tools mentioned above to map C++ methods directly to Python method names. For example, if you have a Python call like ROBOT.move(forward, 20cm), you would expose a C++ method move(direction, distance) and bind it to Python using a bridging library.
Example with Pybind11:
#include <pybind11/pybind11.h>
namespace py = pybind11;
class Robot {
public:
void move(const std::string& direction, double distance) {
// C++ implementation
}
};
PYBIND11_MODULE(robot, m) {
py::class_<Robot>(m, "Robot")
.def(py::init<>()) // Expose constructor
.def("move", &Robot::move); // Expose the `move` method
}
In Python:
from robot import Robot
ROBOT = Robot()
ROBOT.move("forward", 20.0)
- Hide the Transition to C++
To users of the library, the transition to C++ can be made transparent:
- The Python import statement (import robot) remains unchanged.
- The Python classes, methods, and arguments mirror the old API.
- Internally, the Python module imports and uses the C++ library, but users won’t see the difference unless they inspect the implementation details.
Example file structure:
robot/
__init__.py # Thin Python wrapper that loads the C++ module
robot_cpp.so # Compiled C++ shared library
The __init__.py might look like:
from .robot_cpp import Robot
Benefits of This Approach:
- Backward Compatibility: Python programs that rely on the old API continue to work without modification.
- Performance: C++ implementations typically perform better than Python, especially for computationally intensive tasks.
- Maintainability: Using tools like Pybind11 keeps the interface concise and easier to maintain compared to manually writing wrappers.
Potential Challenges:
- Dependencies:
Users may need to install additional dependencies (e.g., the C++ runtime or compiled .so files).
- Compilation:
Building the C++ library requires a proper build system (e.g., CMake or Make) and environment setup.
- Debugging:
Errors in the C++ layer might manifest as less informative Python exceptions, requiring debugging at the C++ level.
Conclusion:
By using tools like Pybind11, Boost.Python, or SWIG, you can reimplement the robot functionality in C++ while ensuring that Python programs continue to use the same API. This approach hides the transition from Python to C++ and allows pre-existing Python code to run unchanged. It provides a seamless experience for the end-user while leveraging the performance and stability of C++.
You said:
Given what has been said so far, is it possible that porting to a different language than C++ might be better? are there other target languages that might be a better choice than C++? If so, why?
ChatGPT said:
Yes, it is entirely possible that another language might be a better fit than C++ for porting the robot functionality, depending on the priorities and requirements of your project. Here’s an analysis of other potential languages and their suitability:
- Rust
- Why Rust Might Be Better:
- Safety and Reliability:
Rust emphasizes memory safety and concurrency safety without requiring a garbage collector. This makes it a good choice for robotics, where avoiding crashes and unpredictable behavior is critical.
- Performance:
Like C++, Rust is a compiled language and delivers high performance, making it suitable for real-time robotic operations.
- Interoperability with Python:
Tools like PyO3 make it straightforward to create Python bindings for Rust code, similar to Pybind11 for C++.
- Modern Features:
Rust’s modern syntax, strong typing, and helpful error messages can make development faster and less error-prone compared to C++.
- Challenges with Rust:
- Learning Curve:
Rust has a steep learning curve, especially for developers coming from Python or less system-oriented languages.
- Community Size:
Although growing rapidly, Rust’s ecosystem is still smaller than C++’s, which might limit the availability of pre-built libraries.
- Go (Golang)
- Why Go Might Be Better:
- Simplicity:
Go’s design prioritizes simplicity and ease of learning, which can speed up development.
- Concurrency:
Go has built-in support for lightweight concurrency with goroutines and channels, making it a good fit for robotics where tasks often need to run in parallel.
- Ease of Deployment:
Go produces static binaries that are easy to distribute and run.
- Challenges with Go:
- Less Control Over Hardware:
Go doesn’t provide as much low-level control as C++ or Rust, which might be a limitation for certain robotics applications.
- Python Interoperability:
While possible (e.g., using cgo or by calling Go code as an external process), the tools for binding Go to Python are less mature than those for C++ or Rust.
- Java
- Why Java Might Be Better:
- Cross-Platform Support:
Java’s “write once, run anywhere” philosophy ensures portability across different Linux flavors or even other operating systems.
- Rich Ecosystem:
Java has a vast number of libraries, including some specifically for robotics.
- Mature Tools:
Java offers mature tools for debugging, testing, and performance monitoring.
- Challenges with Java:
- Performance Overhead:
Java’s garbage collection and runtime environment can add latency and overhead, which might not be ideal for robotics.
- Python Interoperability:
Interfacing Java with Python is possible but not as seamless as with C++ or Rust.
- C
- Why C Might Be Better:
- Bare-Metal Control: C gives you the most direct control over hardware, making it suitable for low-level robotics tasks.
- Lightweight: C programs tend to be smaller and faster than those written in higher-level languages.
- Challenges with C:
- Lack of Modern Features:
C lacks many features of modern languages, such as object-oriented programming or type safety.
- Error-Prone:
The lack of built-in safety mechanisms makes C code more prone to bugs and vulnerabilities.
- Kotlin
- Why Kotlin Might Be Better:
- Interoperability with Java:
Kotlin can use Java libraries, giving you access to Java’s ecosystem while offering a more modern and concise syntax.
- Multi-platform Capabilities:
Kotlin Multiplatform can target multiple architectures, which could simplify cross-compiling for various robot hardware.
- Challenges with Kotlin:
- Limited Robotics Ecosystem:
Kotlin doesn’t yet have a strong presence in robotics compared to C++, Rust, or Python.
- Interfacing with Python:
Kotlin’s Python integration isn’t as mature as C++ or Rust.
Comparison Table:
| Language |
Performance |
Safety |
Ease of Python Integration |
Robotics Ecosystem |
Learning Curve |
Notes |
| C++ |
High |
Medium |
High |
Mature |
Steep |
A solid choice for control and flexibility. |
| Rust |
High |
High |
High |
Growing |
Steep |
Excellent for safety and performance. |
| Go |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Limited |
Low |
Simple and effective for concurrency. |
| Java |
Medium |
Medium |
Medium |
Mature |
Medium |
Stable but might have performance overhead. |
| C |
High |
Low |
Medium |
Mature |
Steep |
Best for low-level tasks, but lacks modern features. |
| Kotlin |
Medium |
Medium |
Low |
Limited |
Low |
Great for modern Java-based workflows. |
Recommendation
-
If Safety and Modern Design Are Key:
Consider Rust. It provides safety, performance, and a growing ecosystem for robotics.
-
If Simplicity and Concurrency Are Priorities:
Go might be a good fit, especially for higher-level robot control.
-
If Low-Level Control Is Critical:
Stick with C++ or even C for bare-metal performance.
C++ remains a strong candidate, but Rust stands out as an excellent modern alternative, especially for long-term maintainability and safety in robotics applications.
)