Boost logo

Boost :

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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at