Re: [boost] [GSoC] Boost.Matrix RFC

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] Boost.Matrix RFC
From: Kornel Kisielewicz (kornel.kisielewicz_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-04-06 10:55:30

On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 4:28 PM, Andrew Sutton <andrew.n.sutton_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Ah... good catch. Your proposal should definitely address how you plan to
>>> adapt your matrix class(es) to the Boost.LA library in the review queue.
>>> Fortunately, there doesn't seem to be much overlap in functionality.
>>>
>>
>> How is a static-sized matrix class not a subset of a static size linear
>> algebra library?
>>
>
> They are -- in fact, the library provides mat and vec classes that trivially
> wrap C-arrays (but do so in a not particularly thorough way). I actually
> missed those in my 1st glance over of the docs. Obviously there would be
> overlap if the proposed matrix data structure was wrapping static arrays. If
> the underlying matrix data was dynamically allocated, you now have a very
> different (i.e., moveable) matrix data structure.

Actually I'm forced to retract my proposal. The whole idea was to wrap
static sized data in matrix and vector adapters, to allow efficient
usage in computer graphics applications (e.g. games) for allowing ease
of optimization and things like SIMD. In cases of dynamically
allocated arrays, there's no reason not to use uBLAS, for the gain in
simplicity is not worth a new library.

However, this idea was violently rejected by some last year, including
by Emil Dotchevski (author of the submitted Boost.LA) -- up to the
point that he wrote a blog post about it :
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode.MathLibrary
( ref http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/187988,
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/187963 and
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/188155 )

However, later, after GSoC ended (with my proposal obviously rejected)
he changed his mind and implemented a library that basically
implements almost every single statement of my proposal:
http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode.BoostLA

Rounding things up, the Boost.Matrix proposal is no longer valid, as
it is now known as Boost.LA and already implemented (I don't see
anything else I'd like to see in Boost.LA, cause all the things I
wrote about in my proposal in 2009 are already taken care of). The
question of whether it's nice or not, I leave up to the reader, I'm
just happy that my proposal... inspired the library to finally be
taken care of.
-- 
regards,
Kornel Kisielewicz
http://chaosforge.org/