Re: matrix library ?

From: walter_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-03-13 15:18:38

Hello,

Ronald Garcia wrote:

> For the sake of clarity, I should mention what kind of library I am
> working on.  Primarily, I'm developing a multidimensional array 
library,
> rather than a matrix library per se. That is, things are more 
similar
> to Blitz++ than MTL, though access to matrix functionality is
> definitely a requirement.  

Thanks. As the discussion in this thread evolves, there seems to be a 
trend towards a distinction of matrix and tensor functionality. So 
may be, we are working on independent pieces of software :-).

> I am also focussing strongly upon portability across C++ compilers.

Agreed.

> Performance must be reasonable, but not in a manner such that some
> platforms cannot make use of it.  The reasoning is that if you need 
a
> high-performance multi-array library, Blitz++ is already available;
> likewise, if you need a high performance matrix library, MTL is
> already available (not to mention other great libraries such as
> POOMA).  But there is a need for a library that can be used rather
> ubiquitously.

I am not sure, whether this is common sense in boost.

> I think that expression templates/mathematical notation should be
> optional.  

We are thinking in a somewhat similar direction. Due to large compile 
times it could be useful, to provide a conventional implementation 
for the development cycle and an expression template implementation 
for release builds.

>    w> -compatibility This is an interesting question: should a boost
>    w> matrix library run under MSVC for example?
>
> IMHO, absolutely!  As I had mentioned previously, there already 
exist
> high-performance high quality libraries that do not run under MSVC.
> MSVC is an important target.

Agreed.

Kind regards

J. Walter