Re: [boost] Formal Review: Boost.Polygon starts today August 24, 2009

Subject: Re: [boost] Formal Review: Boost.Polygon starts today August 24, 2009
From: Barend Gehrels (barend_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-01 18:42:47

Thomas Klimpel wrote:
> Barend Gehrels wrote:
>   
>>     
>
> I don't know whether convex hull should be considered as a basic polygon algorithm.
It is the base of some other algorithms, e.g. the polygon diameter 
(furthest point pair, e.g. 
http://pagesperso-orange.fr/colin.barker/lpa/anti_pod.htm). But indeed 
it can be discussed if it is really basic. It is prescribed by OGC and 
implemented by most spatial databases.

>   
>> 2) though some reviewers were satisfied about the performance, and the
>> paper indicates it is well performing, our benchmark shows that it is in
>> general slower or much slower than other libraries:
>>     
>
> Who do you mean by "some reviewers"? The review by "Sebastian Redl" doesn't talk about performance, nor do most of the pre-reviews. 
I did mean one of yours indeed:
> -> The benchmarks by the author also indicate that the library is very efficient. <-
>   
And this one by Mathias:
> The library appears to be quite adequate at performing operations on 
> dynamically-sized polygons of integral coordinates.

>> I think most people using geometry / polygons are using floating point
>> coordinates. As these are not supported in the algorithms where this
>> library is specialized on (booleans), I think it is useful for a limited
>> public (VSLI?)
>>     
>
> It's also useful for VLSI :)
>   
Sure :-)

>
>   
>> I hope that my review was as objective as can be expected from an
>> alternative library writer.
>> ...
>> It is to the other reviewers to decide that this is the case.
>>     
>
> So I conclude from this (as being one of the other reviewers) that you don't vote against accepting Boost.Polygon as a Boost library. Or did you just miss the advice "Please always state in your review, whether you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library!"?
>   
This is a difficult one, the one that I wanted to avoid indeed, so I 
omitted it from my reply. As a Boost-user, always working with and 
interested in geometry, this library in its current form is of no use 
for me. But of course, I'm part of the team of another geometry library, 
having most of this one and more... so why would I use this one... 
Therefore I feel I can't vote.

Regards, Barend