[boost] Re: Raw Array Classes

From: Nick Ambrose (nicka_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-09-01 13:31:27

Reid Sweatman wrote:

> > Have you looked at blitz++ library ? It uses no assembler,
> > just templates etc. I'd be interested to see how it compared
> > to raw assembler,
> > especially with a decent compiler.
>
> No, haven't looked at much third-party stuff other than Boost and SGI's STL.
> Any more, if it costs money, the outfits I work for won't buy it.  And most
> of the programmers don't believe in it.  Hey, out of maybe 60 programmers
> here, there's maybe two who even believe in templates, and only one other
> than me who uses assembler.  Namespaces everyone but me rejects, because of
> their bad experiences with VC++ 4.0.  So I'm viewed as something of a
> troublemaker for just using the coding techniques I know <g>.  There's also
> a strong "not invented here" effect at work.  I couldn't interest anyone in
> MathEngine here, even though it whales the tar out of any physics engine in
> the building, and is practically free, to boot.
>
> But for my own stuff, I'm always willing to look at new stuff.  Have you got
> a URL on Blitz++, or is it web-findable?  Thanks.

The URL I have is : http://monet.uwaterloo.ca/blitz/
but it seems to be down currently. I do know what you mean about being viewed as
a troublemaker.
I insist on using the standard C++ library wherever possible instead of the
preferred in-house use of MFC. I detest MFC and try to never use it. Recently,
however, my decision was vindicated when a large client expressed concern over
some code that we were licensing them - they wanted to make sure it used
portable code - specifically STL over MFC as they are on a different platform
than us.

I myself haven't used blitz but I have heard great things about it, and was
interested in how it would compare up for the stuff you are doing, and if it was
even appropriate for that.

Do you really see a great speedup by hand-coding the assembler ?

Nick