From: Toon Knapen (toon.knapen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-01 16:11:50
>>If not then we'll end up with two different
> Eventually. I believe, that you are able to finish the job even
> better than we ;-), so I currently do not see any reason to submit
> ublas, if you are going to submit MTL-3.
ublas and MTL3 are the only boost libraries that almost totally overlap
(certainly overlapping audience). This can be good to try different
approaches and eventually take best of both worlds.
But I do feel very strongly that it would be very bad if _both_
eventually would coexist in the main distribution. I can imagine that a
library could be replaced by a next evolution or by another library but
overlapping functionality should be minimised ; can you imagine two
different interfaces for the std::vector in the standard ?!).
ublas is gaining momentum, on the other hand I'm also expecting a lot of
MTL3 but looking at the CVS log, the MTL3 development is not very active.
I have no preference for one or the other (although I currently use
ublas in production code) but would appreciate if the responsibles for
both projects could discuss at the boost-ml how they see the evolution
of their libraries in the future.
Comments ? or do you feel a more ad-hoc approach should be followed ?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk