From: Lucas Galfaso (lgalfaso_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-05 18:18:31
"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Lucas Galfaso" <lgalfaso_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> "Joel Eidsath" <jeidsath_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>>>Do not agree. You should have ease of use _and_ efficiency. Modern C++
>>>>techniques allow for this.
>>> I was trying to give myself wiggle room, but I pretty much agree with
>>> you. I don't expect anything as fast as GMP, but I imagine that a plain
>>> C++ library could still do very well.
>> Agree, I do not want to compete with GMP on performance, but, without
>> sacrificing ease of use, have the best performance that a fully
>> C++ implementation allows.
> IMO, if you don't want to compete with GMP, you should at least allow
> the library to be built as a wrapper over GMP.
Sorry if my statement was misunderstood, but when I said that I do not want
to compete with GMP I did not mean that I am not considering speed, just
that I will con write assembler to get a 5% improvement.
The implementation I placed at the sandbox some few month ago, does have one
of the fastest, pure C++, implementation of the modular exponentiation that
I know about [and it has one of the poorest implementation of
serialization/deserialization]. My goal in pursuing an implementation in
Boost of big integers is not to have the _best_ implementation possible, but
.) is really easy to use.
.) fast (not fastest ever, just fast.)
.) Boost like license.
.) using C++ (not C as GMP)
> Dave Abrahams
> Boost Consulting
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk