From: Jaap Suter (J.Suter_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-22 10:21:03
> It should save some work to define these objects in terms of geometric
While I fully agree with this, you might find you'll have a hard time
convincing other people of this. Many people are so locked into the
traditional concepts of linear algebra that a geometric library without
matrices (to put it bluntly) won't be very useful to many people.
> How about Jaap Suter's Geometric Algebra library?
If, and only if, people agree that Geometric (or Clifford) Algebra is the
way to go, then my library might be a good starting point. I am still
working on a few issues and adding new functionality (most notably
compile-time versions of the Clifford operators for gradelists, so I can put
a proper operator overloading scheme in place), but the benchmarks I have
done so far prove that my library is the fastest of the few Geometric
Algebra libraries around. One of the things I've done is port the raytracer
(http://carol.wins.uva.nl/~fontijne/raytracer/) made by Daniel Fontijne, and
used as a benchmark for Gaigen and Clu.
I will be releasing a paper with all the details somewhere about 6 weeks
from now. I originally planned to have it done before that, but my work is
taking up too much time at the moment.
If anybody has any questions about my library, I would be glad to help out.
I'm using it a lot myself and it has been very useful so far.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk