Re: [Multi] Proposal

From: Alfredo Correa (alfredo.correa_at_[hidden])
Date: 2024-09-25 02:28:40

>
>
>
> Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 17:30:04 +0100
> From: John Maddock <jz.maddock_at_[hidden]>
> To: Seth via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
>

> >> 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.
>

I completely agree, I am not even going to try to include vectorized
operations inside this library, even as a specialized cases But I will do
anything I can for people to be able to exploit them when possible through
algorithms and execution policies.

At most what I am doing is to interface with BLAS the best I can with some
features that are unique to the library in what personally I think is a
fairly original way. (capturing a functional-programming interface).

Other *numerical* libraries went that way and that is commendable.

Thank all for the feedback,
Alfredo