Subject: Re: [boost] different matrix library?
From: Rutger ter Borg (rutger_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-17 05:38:50
> Rutger ter Borg wrote:
>> Ok. I am looking through the documentation of version 2, there are things
>> I like, and some things to lesser extend, mainly because it tries to
>> mimic Matlab.
> That's the design rationale of NT2. Main use case is : take a .M, get a
> .cpp, compile, ???, profit.
Doesn't http://www.mathworks.com/products/compiler/ fulfill this purpose?
C++ and .m are quite different. My impression is that people at Boost tend
to have lengthy discussions about syntax.
> We started yes. But NT2 is a two men work, so it took times. But in the
> end, the goal is to have a flexible code base for "optimized computation
> on N-D table" and plug-in domain-specific interface on top of this. My
> main research topic is all about that, I just need time+people ;)
Of course :-) A DSL is not written overnight, either. Perhaps setting up a
.qbk in the sandbox would be useful for this purpose?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk