From: Thorsten (th.behrens_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-10-15 18:43:34
On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:43:50PM -0700, Lubomir Bourdev wrote:
> First of all, as far as we know we don't have a formal proposal from
> Vigra on the table, so we feel it is unfair to reject for this reason.
> Here is another perhaps more important question to the boost audience:
> If you have to make a choice, would you choose a library with a better
> design and a minimal set of existing algorithms or a library that has
> more stuff in it, but with not so good a design?
This is IMO not a question of either or - both GIL and Vigra have spots
where they shine, and areas where they could learn from the other lib.
> A related question: Which one is easier - building new functionality on
> top of a solid design, or extending the design of a library with lots of
> existing algorithms that are built on top of the old design?
What if you need to revert your design, because certain functionality is
not (or not easily) implementable - and you only find out while doing
that one, specific algorithm? So, seeing a lib with lots of
(algorithmic) functionality kind of increases my confidence that the
basic design is sound...
> Merging between GIL/Vigra or especially GIL/AGG would be interesting.
To repeat: I'd at least like to have Vigra's concept of pixel accessors
and promotion traits merged/applied in GIL.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk