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

From: Artyom Beilis (artyom.beilis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-24 19:09:50

> >> 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.

Not exactly. And in fact the library has an integration with cblas -
which is a good thing to do.
However I would expect to see at least "glue" between libraries like
OpenCV. As for example numpy as opencv
work together seamlessly

Anyway there are other issues - as an example I was talking about
automatic broadcast
adding of shapes (5,1) and (2,5,10) that would normally boradcast
automatically to (2,5,10)
Something I'd expected to see in such a library

Artyom