From: Cromwell Enage (sponage_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-02-07 02:13:54
> What is your evaluation of the design?
Simple and straightforward. Its extensibility is a
big plus. I am not a statistician, however, so I
cannot judge its usability in that regard.
I'm curious about the design of weighted samples in an
accumulator_set. Can operations other than
multiplication be applied to the weight?
I also echo John Maddock's request for pushing the
elements of a sequence to an accumulator. By logical
extension, the ability to add objects of the same
accumulator_set type together should be considered as
> What is your evaluation of the implementation?
Nicely done. I'm sure it's first-rate.
> What is your evaluation of the documentation?
In addition to the gentler introductory tutorial
previously suggested by others, I would also like to
see a motivation and/or rationale that is more
explanatory than the "old adage", e.g. "Why Not Just A
for Loop?" or "Going Beyond std::accumulate".
Usually, I expect the reference documentation to be
categorized by class and/or function instead of by
header. Staring at a long list of #includes, even as
well organized as they are, does not raise my
confidence in my ability to comprehend the inner
workings of a library like this one.
> What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness
> of the library?
Even outside the field of statistics, I sense its
great value in large-scale applications. However, for
small-scale programs (like the neural network example
I recently added to my as-yet-unannounced automata
library), it's hard to beat the equivalent for loops
in terms of readability and efficiency.
> Did you try to use the library?
Tried and succeeded.
> With what compiler?
GCC 3.4.5 (MinGW special)
> Did you have any problems?
Not at this time, no.
> How much effort did you put into your evaluation?
> A glance? A quick reading? In-depth study?
I'd say a quick reading. Enough to comprehend the
tutorials, then a few excursions within the reference
> Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
I am familiar with the basics, so I'm not that
intimidated by "kurtosis" and other finer details.
> Do you think the library should be accepted as a
> Boost library?
The shape of its documentation is its biggest weakness
right now, but it is outweighed by the robustness of
its design. I know that the documentation can be
improved and I trust that it will be improved. I vote
Cromwell D. Enage
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk