Re: [boost] [Review] Review of the Accumulators library begins today, Jan 29

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
well.

> What is your evaluation of the implementation?

Nicely done.  I'm sure it's first-rate.

> What is your evaluation of the documentation?

Aack.

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
material.

> 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
yes.

                              Cromwell D. Enage

 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/