This is the mail archive of the
gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GSL project.
Re: GSL, VSIPL, and the ultimate numerical library
- To: Jiri Hajek <jirik at ucw dot cz>
- Subject: Re: GSL, VSIPL, and the ultimate numerical library
- From: Gerard Jungman <jungman at lanl dot gov>
- Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 12:07:34 -0700
- CC: gsl-discuss at sources dot redhat dot com
- Organization: LANL T-8
- References: <000601c044ab$d1345ca0$2d00a8c0@sti.cz>
Jiri Hajek wrote:
> because I haven't compiled it in Windows yet.
Has anybody compiled under Windows? In any form? Cygwin?
We don't see alot of reports.
> However, there is one thing I miss a lot: C++ version of this library, at
Well, there will never be a "C++ version" of GSL. GSL is
a C library from head to toe. A C++ project might reuse
some of the code (and more of the thinking), but would be
a completely distinct project.
> least for matrix algebra, because there is big diffence between writing
> several matrix operations using C++ operators and plain C functions.
Well, maybe operator overloading (together with the expression template
goop needed to make it satisfactory) is not a bad idea. But in itself
it is not a major issue. I say this only to try and enlighten anybody
who thinks that gimmicks will save the day. Gimmicks are gimmicks;
meanwhile there are real structural problems to be addressed.
Go to oonumerics.org to see the broad picture of what people
are concerned with.
> There is written "while allowing wrappers to be written for very high level
> languages" on the GSL web page. Did anybody try this or anybody plans to do
> it?
Somebody was following the releases fairly closely and creating
python bindings. We haven't heard from him in a while.
--
G. Jungman