Re: [Boost-users] Why Boost uBLAS

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Why Boost uBLAS
From: Oswin Krause (Oswin.Krause_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-04-03 09:23:28

Hi,

I think you have a misconception there: Armadillo is the reinventing of 
the wheel, uBLAS is much much older (I think it was created around 2002 
or so). There are strong points against uBLAS but also a few quite good 
in favour of it. For example neither newmat nor armadillo support sparse 
vectors. uBLAS doesn't have maximum performance but a very rich feature 
set which is hard to find in any other library.

Since I am also only a boost user I can not answer "why don't you adopt 
X?" questions :).

Greetings,
Oswin

On 2012-04-03 11:21, delryn_at_[hidden] wrote:
> Good day,
>
> i started using boost one month ago. Now i saw that boost is offering
> uBLAS to use/manipulate matrices. So my question is: Why is the wheel
> invented totally new? The uBLAS-Team even writes that they focus an
> "correct algorithm" and that "performance will be improved later".
>
> Why cant boost simply adpot
> http://arma.sourceforge.net/
>
> or Newmat 11:
>
> http://www.robertnz.net/nm11.htm#refer
>
> I used Newmat in many complex commercial projects where performance
> was very important.
> Newmat is easy to use and I dont now any bugs. Maybe the interface is
> not totally stl compatible, but this library is very easy and
> intuitive to use.
>
> What do you think about this?