Re: [boost] A possible GSOC 2011 proposal idea

Subject: Re: [boost] A possible GSOC 2011 proposal idea
From: Chad Seibert (chadjseibert_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-24 14:28:13

First of all, thanks for all our input! However, it seems that it would take
longer than the GSOC student submission period to decide an appropriate
course of action. So, I'm forgoing the project. Again, thank you for your
consideration in my work.

I have a new proposal, however. There is no doubt that Suffix Tree's are
useful and I think it would be a great addition to the Boost library. Over
the GSOC  timeframe, I'll implement a RAM based suffix tree algorithm such
as Ukkonen's algorithm. The nice thing about implementing Ukkonen's
algorithm is that it isn't difficult to get a simple implementation running
and to speed it up later. Please see the implementation section of "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffix_tree" for more information.

If the Boost community feels this is a worthy addition, I'll write up a
proposal as soon as I can. Many thanks for your consideration,
Chad

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> At Tue, 22 Mar 2011 00:12:24 +0100,
> Mathias Gaunard wrote:
> >
> > On 21/03/2011 18:45, Dave Abrahams wrote:
> >
> > > Typically what you do with a generic library is that you write generic
> > > algorithms for arbitrary datatypes and then specialize them to
> > > dispatch to LAPACK when the types can be handled directly.  That way
> > > you can still get a reasonably-performant matrix-of-matrices or
> > > matrix-of-rationals and get screamin'-hot performance for floats and
> > > doubles.
> >
> > From my experience I found that when efficiency is one of the main
> > cocners, it often worked better the other way around: write the
> > algorithm optimally, and then see how you can generalize it.
>
> Well naturally; the generic programming process *starts* with multiple
> optimal non-general implementations, and lifts them repeatedly to
> higher levels of abstraction...
> [http://www.generic-programming.org/about/intro/lifting.php]
>
> > also, writing multiple implementations requires time, which is
> > somewhat restricted during a GSoC.
>
> ...but as the generic programmer, you don't have to write them
> yourself; you generally look around and find examples that people
> smarter than you have written.
>
> Of course, that takes time too :-)
>
> --
> Dave Abrahams
> BoostPro Computing
> http://www.boostpro.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>