Re: [Multi] Proposal (was Re: Boost Digest, Vol 7345, Issue 1)

From: John Maddock (jz.maddock_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-22 16:30:04

On 22/09/2024 16:13, Seth via Boost wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2024, at 7:10 PM, Artyom Beilis via Boost wrote:
>
>> See, this is exactly the problem. Why would I need something like that
>> if I need to go to all the 3rd party libraries to actually use one
>> efficiently?
> Can you give arguments why "I don't see why I need this" is an argument against a library existing?
>
>> But if you don't provide algorithms, maybe I'd better take a
>> library/framework that does.
> Perhaps.
>
>> But, you making numpy-like library... otherwise you wouldn't be
>> interfacing cblas.
> A clear case of diyd/diyd ("Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't"). Of all the features you're missing here you decry "At least show ways to interoperate with existing thirdparty libraries". Now, they went and did that (if I'm not mistaken, clearly marked as an extension that might not even be part of the proposed library), and you decry that. There's no winning.

+1, I've only been lurking in this conversation, but it seems to me that 
trying to compete with low level and highly optimized BLAS libraries is 
a fools errand.

John.