Subject: Re: [boost] Formal review for QVM
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-12-13 19:38:21
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Rajaditya Mukherjee <
> Oswin Krause wrote:
> >> We encourage your participation in this review. At a minimum, kindly
> >>> state:
> >>> - Whether you believe the library should be accepted into Boost
> >> Not now, but at a later point surely.
> >> * Conditions for acceptance
> >> This is not because the library is not relevant or useful, or because of
> >> bad design, but because it misses important functionality in the current
> >> state that would give it impact in the current ecosystem. "If I already
> >> have to use two competing point libraries, why should I additionally
> >> introduce qvm?"
> >> The scope must be broadened by including some advanced algorithms which
> >> make qvm useful in the ecosystem, also interoperability with already
> >> existing boost components must be established. Some of its functionality
> >> already exists in boost, which makes acceptance as a standalone library
> >> bit odd. It could be worthwhile to merge qvm with another geometry
> >> boost library to strengthen the links between the libraries.
> > Thanks!
> > Do you vote for conditional acceptance under the condition that in
> > addition to basic operations also more advanced algorithms should be
> > implemented in the future? Or that the library shouldn't be accepted at
> > this point?
> > Emil are you willing to extend the scope of the library?
> âHi Adam, I believe that since this library specifically targets operations
> in geometric spaces in 2/3/4d, advanced operations are out of the scope for
> this library. It is my understanding (and I may be very wrong here since
> Oswin is a much more senior member of this community than me) that QVM
> supports all the operations that I would currently expect from it - it is
> not a substitute for uBLAS since uBLAS is a complete linear algbera library
> with solvers and advanced matrix functionalities. QVM caters to the
> graphics community with support for operations like swizzling which I often
> use when I am working with GLSL shaders(the client ops.). Just like I use
> glm and eigen in my current projects, I can envision people using QVM and
> uBLAS in a similar fashion with one complementing the other.
Rajaditya, I really appreciate this comment, you're absolutely right about
the scope of QVM, this is not a generic linear algebra library, though it
also isn't "yet another 3D graphics math library" either -- its more
appropriate to think of it as a meeting place for the many other such
libraries that exist already, since medium- and large-scale programs tend
to use multiple Q, V and M types coming from several different APIs.
That said, and to reply to Adam's question, I believe that Oswin does have
a point, it may be appropriate to broaden the scope to include
functionality that's used in 3D applications other than graphics.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk