Re: [boost] A possible GSOC 2011 proposal idea

Subject: Re: [boost] A possible GSOC 2011 proposal idea
From: Chad Seibert (chadjseibert_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-21 11:47:09

Right then. Perhaps the best alternative is to write a wrapper for common LP
and LS solvers, based on the assumption that no combination of our efforts
will ever out-match other open-source implementations. Does that seem a
reasonable summer project? Write a wrapper around LAPACK, similar to
LAPACK++?

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Thomas Klimpel <Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden]
> wrote:

> Chad Seibert wrote:
> > Yes, it does. However, it seems inappropriate to write an LP library
> > for Boost that uses LAPACK to do the linear algebra stuff. If we wanted
> to
> > go down that road, we could just write a wrapper for an existing lp
> > library instead, like what OpenOpt does.
>
> I have to disagree here. We have Boost.MPI, which builds on top of existing
> MPI implementations instead of trying to reinvent MPI. Now the sandbox
> numeric bindings project (<
> http://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/numeric_bindings>) probably will
> never be able to compete with Boost.MPI in terms of perfection, but it seems
> to be quite usable nevertheless. There are projects like NT2 or eigen, which
> try to do better/different than BLAS/LAPACK and succeeded more or less.
> However, I don't see which benefit it would bring if you try to compete with
> them during a GSOC project.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>