[Pyrex] Should Pyrex be in standard Python?

[Charles Hixson]

Paul Prescod wrote:

> ...
> Pyrex is a staggering idea.
>
> From the point of view of a C programmer it could be thought of as C 
> with garbage collection, objects, exceptions and a nice syntax (i.e. 
> for loops).
>
> For a C++ programmer it could be thought of as C++ without all of the 
> cruft that nobody likes or can figure out.
>
> For a Java programmer it could be a more dynamic Java with 
> integrations into
>
> For a Python programmer it is a) an easy way of making Python 
> extensions, b) a way of MASSIVELY speeding up Python code. It should 
> be a tool in every Python programmer's toolbox.
>
> I believe that Pyrex should be MUCH more popular than it is. It just 
> lacks marketing. I'm putting together a few articles and talks (anyone 
> else talking at PyCon?) to start filling that gap. I've been told that 
> there are several outlets for magazine articles.
>
>  Paul Prescod

Do you have an example?  I'm thinking of, perhaps, a simple gtk version 
of "Hello, World!", with the string stored in a python string, and the 
calls to gtk being executed directly from pyrex.

It seems to me that such a thing would be a nice addition to the web page.

Also, do you have any relative timings for pyrex and C executed over the 
exact same code (well, in translation of course but literal 
translation).  I know that Python provides increased flexibility, but 
how much do you need to pay over the areas where that isn't needed?