Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach for C++?

Subject: Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach for C++?
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-06-05 08:40:52

on Sat Jun 05 2010, "Belcourt, Kenneth" <kbelco-AT-sandia.gov> wrote:

> Hi Ross,
>
> On Jun 3, 2010, at 5:29 PM, Bartlett, Roscoe A wrote:
>
> Take my comments with a grain of salt as I'm biased having interacted with both you
> and Trililnos for the last decade or so.

In other words, unlike me, you know what you're talking about :-)
>
>> I will argue below that more C++ programs are better served by using more of #2
>> object-oriented C++ and to a lesser extent template-based  methods in #3 and #4
>> (except where it is called for in lower-level  code).
>
> Someone, I think David, asked for a concrete example.  A well known example is
> matrices and, for exposition, the additive schwarz  algorithm described in Saad's
> Iterative Methods for Sparse Linear  Systems, page 401, section 13.3.3, available
> here:
>
> http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~saad/PS/all_pdf.zip

This is to say nothing of the fact that OO is incapable of representing
even the simplest binary mathematical operations polymorphically without
losing type safety
(http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.39.8837).  OO
has its place, but the binary method problem is such a huge obstacle for
the design of mathematical frameworks that I'm very surprised to hear
arguments that OO serves most C++ programs best coming from someone in
the HPC community.

P.S. what's the frequency, Kenneth?  Does Noel have a brother at
Sandia or…?
--
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://boostpro.com