Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: DE (satan66613_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-11 09:31:43
on 11.08.2009 at 14:54
Edward Grace wrote :
> In principle yes - however the efficient implementation of the above
> is likely to be a lot tricker than it might seem.
will you as a user concern about how tricky an implementation is?
or will you rather care about how convinient and clear public interface
> The 'advantage' of BLAS and other routines as I see it is many many
> man-years of optimisation and tweaking on various architectures as
> well as good generic implementations (ATLAS). I'd venture that it's
> still going to be hard to beat!
the advantage of BLAS as far as i can see is if you take original
fortran implementation and use it as it is (wow, how many 'as's and
as i understand that's the implementation you are talking about when
i hope to make an implementation 'as good as' but which will exploit
all of c++ advantages
> I am slightly unsure, is your proposal a rewrite of the linear
> algebra routines or a wrapper that conceptually maps calls in the
> following manner?
> yourlib::operator*(foo,bar) -> ublas::prod(foo,bar)
definitely it's not a wrapper
so i guess it's a rewrite in c++ style
> Are you aware of Blitz++ and POOMA?
> Blitz offers a very (for the mathematical physicist) intuitive tensor-
> like approach, an example:
> // This expression will set
> // c = a * b
> // ijk ik kj
> C = A(i,k) * B(k,j);
i'm aware of blitz++ (i peeped at the implementation a little when i
wrote my own lib)
i don't use it because i don't like the concept
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk