Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest check for 3d geometry proposal

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Interest check for 3d geometry proposal
From: Kornel Kisielewicz (kornel.kisielewicz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-27 05:33:02

On Fri, Mar 27, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Patrick Mihelich
<patrick.mihelich_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I hate to rain on your enthusiasm, but I agree with Luke that your
> high-performance low-dimensional linear algebra library is not very
> compelling. You will only be reinventing the wheel. This problem is already
> solved beautifully by Eigen2, which you should take a second look at -
> unlike uBLAS, it has first-class support for fixed-size vectors/matrices and
> does very clever SIMD optimizations. There is also Sony's Vector Math
> library in Bullet, I believe. These have liberal licenses - not so liberal
> as Boost, but good enough.

It's not much reinventing the wheel -- a 3d vector/matrix/quaternion
library without optimizations can be written in under a week, the main
work of the proposal would be data structures and algorithms that
would be built over it.

> A selection of 3-dimensional geometry algorithms could be interesting,
> though. That would already be meaty enough for a GSOC project. My suggestion
> would be to work with Barend & Bruno and simply write your algorithms using
> their primitives, Point etc.
(...)
> and I think you will have much more of an impact integrating with an
> existing geometry library than writing your own from scratch.

There are some problems with naming conventions ( as to the standard
used in CG3D ), and also the fact that only the point class (and maybe
segment) would be of any use to me. However this is compelling, as I
would be working on the things I planned from almost scratch anyway,
but from the outside it would look like expanding something existing
;).
-- 
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz