Subject: Re: [ublas] size1 and size2
From: Marco Guazzone (marco.guazzone_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-11 08:50:12
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Jesse Perla <jesseperla_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Marco Guazzone <marco.guazzone_at_[hidden]>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 8:48 PM, Gunter Winkler <guwi17_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Hmmm, but in this way we risk to give an inconsistent interface.
>> In MTL4 we have both member functions and free functions
> What have your experiences with MTL4 been? Is it ready to be considered as
> a matrix library? Do you think it will be the ublas successor eventually?
No experience. :((
Just looked a bit.
For what I saw there're few features with respect to uBlas, such as:
* the use of "parameters" as template argument for matrices (reduce
the number of template arguments)
IMO these feature only does not motivate a transition from uBlas to MTL4.
It does in case MTL4 performances outperform uBlas's ones.
I've also looked a bit to GLAS library.
Maybe we need to take it into consideration as the ublas successor too.