Boost Users :
Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Why Boost uBLAS
From: Oswin Krause (Oswin.Krause_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-03 09:23:28
I think you have a misconception there: Armadillo is the reinventing of
the wheel, uBLAS is much much older (I think it was created around 2002
or so). There are strong points against uBLAS but also a few quite good
in favour of it. For example neither newmat nor armadillo support sparse
vectors. uBLAS doesn't have maximum performance but a very rich feature
set which is hard to find in any other library.
Since I am also only a boost user I can not answer "why don't you adopt
X?" questions :).
On 2012-04-03 11:21, delryn_at_[hidden] wrote:
> Good day,
> i started using boost one month ago. Now i saw that boost is offering
> uBLAS to use/manipulate matrices. So my question is: Why is the wheel
> invented totally new? The uBLAS-Team even writes that they focus an
> "correct algorithm" and that "performance will be improved later".
> Why cant boost simply adpot
> or Newmat 11:
> I used Newmat in many complex commercial projects where performance
> was very important.
> Newmat is easy to use and I dont now any bugs. Maybe the interface is
> not totally stl compatible, but this library is very easy and
> intuitive to use.
> What do you think about this?
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net