Subject: Re: [ublas] New uBLAS maintainer
From: Marco Guazzone (marco.guazzone_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-15 06:38:07
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 9:44 PM, David Bellot <david.bellot_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Dear uBLAS users,
> recently Gunter Winkler asked for someone to take over the maintenance of
> the uBLAS library. As a fervent user of uBLAS and a strong believer in Open
> Source and Free Software, I decided to propose myself as the new duty man. I
> will therefore have the honor to be in charge of uBLAS and will do my best
> to make uBLAS reach its goals of versatility, performance and ease of use.
> Let me quickly introduce myself: my name is David Bellot, I hold a PhD in
> Computer Science and do research (currently in the finance world) on Machine
> Learning and probabilistic artificial intelligence, hence my strong interest
> in uBLAS.
> First of all, I want to say a big Thank You to Gunter for all the great work
> he did on uBLAS and a personal Thank You to help me getting on-board and
> starting my new duty as uBLAS maintainer.
Thank you for taking care of uBLAS maintenance.
I join to your big thanks to Gunter which contributed to keep uBLAS
live and riding the wave.
> I would also like to talk about potential projects for the next versions of
> uBLAS. For that purpose, I hope everybody will be interested in bringing new
> ideas, wishes and even new pieces of code:
Please also take a look at tickets.
There are some of them which already contain code for new features.
For instance, I've implemented a diag function (similar to the one
found in Matlab)
It would be interesting (at least for me) to get some feedback
Also, Gunter's Web site has very interesting piece of codes:
I wish if they might be integrated into uBLAS.
> (4) another hot topic which is a recurrent complain about uBLAS: the product
> of 2 matrices. Do we want prod(A,B) or A*B. Let's think about it because
> other libraries implemented A*B in a very efficient manner too.
I think this is more a user-level dev-level view.
Honestly, I can live without A*B, especially if its implementation
would take much work.
I think it is better to have new features (operations, solvers, ...)
than eye-candy notation.