Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: joel (joel.falcou_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-15 05:14:09
> to everyone (especially joel falcou)
Damn, I'm unmasked :p
> till now i actually don't see any critical flaws in the design
> implementation will be altered in any way of course
Well, the problem is not the design per itself. What usually happens
with such lib is that you have tons of different user types
that all want disjoint set of features.
Matrix lib always looks easy to do. Except they are not. I can toss you
tons of questions : will you support openMP, threading, MPI, SIMD
extensions, will you embed loop level optimization based on expression
introspection ? Will you interface looks like matlab, maple or
mathematica ? etc ... Not even counting the things we barely scratched
like storage mode, allocation mode etc...
That's why I'm avoiding to comment your code cause I'm developing
something similar but for a somehow different audience than yours and my
view will prolly be radically different than yours.
I can also only reiterate the fact that I have a somehow large code base
for such a thing that's maybe worth reusing. Three heads are better than
two I think.
-- ___________________________________________ Joel Falcou - Assistant Professor PARALL Team - LRI - Universite Paris Sud XI Tel : (+33)1 69 15 66 35
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk