Subject: Re: [boost] [sort] Re: [review] Formal review period for Sort library begins today, November 10, and ends Wednesday, November 19
From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-11-10 11:48:39
On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:15 AM, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> If I see that function whatever_sort implements an algorithm from paper
>> N, with 200 citations, then I can assume enough people reviewed the
>> algorithm. If that function implements an adaptation, then I'm not really
>> sure what complexity I can expect.
> So the question, is who is is qualified to review your algorithm as an
>> algorithm - you know, formal proof of correctness, formal complexity
>> estimates, tests and statistical validity of them, and the quality relative
>> to other existing algorithms. I would not think it's a job for Boost.
> Demanding that the library be backed by a paper containing formal proof of
> correctness, formal complexity estimates, and 200 citations, strikes me as
> grossly unfair.
> We've never done this to any library under consideration. Had we done so,
> none of them would've passed.
> What we're interested in is:
> - is the library useful?
> - is the library high quality?
> - is the author going to stick around and support it?
> We do not, generally, require formal proofs for any of the above, no
> matter whether the library contains an amount of innovation.
> Raising the criteria for acceptance to absurd levels for innovative
> libraries treats innovation as a pollutant.
> We determine whether the library works by testing it, and we determine the
> library's performance by timing it. We're empiricists.
+1 for all of the above.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk