Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: DE (satan66613_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-12 03:28:44
on 12.08.2009 at 0:53
Patrick Mihelich wrote :
> Pavel, let me second Zoran's recommendation of Eigen2. IMO it far outclasses
> any other currently released C++ linalg library. It is pure C++, not
> bindings to BLAS/LAPACK, but already as fast as things like Intel MKL for
> many operations.
> Writing such a library from scratch is a massive undertaking. I would
> suggest working with Joel or the Eigen guys.
the thing is even if a library like we are talking about to be written
from scratch i'm not afraid of that because i've already done that
once and i know exactly how to do it
some copy-paste, some snippets and voila
but thanks for your bothering anyway
in the end i think we all will benefit from (re)designing such a library
-- Pavel ps BTW i wrote very good (i believe) matrix inversion function and wanted to compare to one from intel (IPP or MKL - i don't remeber now) i laughed loud when intel's routine yielded stack overflow! well i think they used recursion to my disappointing
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk