Re: [boost] different matrix library?

Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: DE (satan66613_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-11 12:15:56

on 11.08.2009 at 18:55
 Rutger ter Borg wrote :
>> wrapping blas or uBLAS is not my intent
>> uBLAS does not support some handy concepts such as complexity of
>> expressions so if you try to wrap uBLAS involving complexity you probably
>> simply double code size because too many is to be wrapped
>> e.g. (V1+V2) has linear complexity, (M1*V1) has square compl.,
>> (M1*M2) has cubic compl. etc.

> I would argue that wrapping around back-ends is the best one could do, given
> the vendor support they have, and man-years spent on them. E.g., using
> template expressions to rewrite a free expression to an optimal set of back-
> end calls (to BLAS, LAPACK, FFTW, etc.)? Then you would be able to benefit
> from vendor-optimised back-ends, and the expressiveness of C++.
speaking of such routines like finding eigenvalues or performing SVD i
agree with you
but nativly implemented blas seems to me better than mapping to
library calls
that's what i'm talking about

-- 
Pavel