From: Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki (shw_mail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-27 11:52:29
Matthias Schabel wrote:
> Here are some questions you might want to answer in your review:
> ? What is your evaluation of the design?
Great! Really Great! Especially statistical part is designed very carefully.
Small distribution classes is an example what is enough to design good
The all library (in my opinion) is prepared to be flexible and lightweight.
In one of my tasks I need to prepare polymorphic structure for
distributions. Thanks to this very good design, I do it quickly.
It means that there are no problems with design to make enhancements for
some particular cases.
> ? What is your evaluation of the implementation?
Very good. The code is boost like. Prefers usage of references. Template
functions, ale prepared cerefully so usage is very simple. User do not need
to allocate dynamically a memory to play with functions - no dynamical
allocations of memory = no possible memory leaks.
> ? What is your evaluation of the documentation?
> ? What is your evaluation of the potential usefulness of the library?
I am using it :-). For those who are working on the topics covered in the
library it can be very good library.
> ? Did you try to use the library?
> With what compiler?
> Did you have any problems?
Rather not - to be honest - I do not remember any problems :-).
> ? How much effort did you put into your evaluation? A glance? A
> quick reading? In-depth study?
Close to "in-depth study". I watched in the implementation. I have read
documentation. And finally use this library.
> ? Are you knowledgeable about the problem domain?
Rather yes. I am working on simulations of the queue (stochastic) systems.
> And finally, every review should answer this question:
> ? Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library?
Yes. However I suggest to slowly extend its volume. Because there is a lack
of very good C++ math libraries which are both designed and developed for
-- |\/\/| Seweryn Habdank-Wojewódzki \/\/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk