Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: DE (satan66613_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-15 04:45:48
on 15.08.2009 at 2:17
Edward Grace wrote :
> Sure. Just because we can doesn't mean we should. Then again, when
> you look at some of Boost 'because we can' could well be the battle
> cry! The profits, once the minefield of development is negotiated,
> may well be surprising and unexpected. It's now been demonstrated
> that various C++ techniques and deep abstraction not only don't
> impact performance but can yield excellent performance and vastly
> improve expressibility.
> I think, and am sure you agree, expressibility is the number one
> concern. Being able to write code that is clear and concise under
> the domain of interest (e.g. linear algebra) is compelling; if it's
> implemented in a suitable manner high performance will come for free!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk