On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 11:56 PM, Nick Pentreath
<[email protected]>wrote:

> Thanks for the update on that PR I will definitely take a look.
>
>
> I wonder if they will run into the exact same Colt issues as mahout did?!
>

Yeah, that's pretty strange, Colt is totally abandoned, and had lots of
little bugs that
we've fixed, and performance that we've improved.


> This DSL looks great, I'm gonna play around with it as soon as I get a
> chance.
>
> One question - breeze has quite a similar syntax that is a bit simpler in
> some ways - basically * for matrix multiply and :* for elementwise. Would
> something similar work here?
>

+1


>
>
> Would be quite nice to have same syntax but different backends that are
> swappable ;)
> —
> Sent from Mailbox for iPhone
>
> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 2:42 AM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > coincidentally, spark mlib just posted a pull request intended to add
> > support for dense and sparse vectors, looks quite similar.
> > https://github.com/mesos/spark/pull/736. They seem to choose JBlas
> backing
> > for dense stuff (although at a vector level there's probably not much
> > reason to) and as-is Colt for sparse stuff.
> > On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Dmitriy Lyubimov <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:07 AM, Ted Dunning <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >>
> >>> This sounds great in principle.  I haven't seen any details yet
> (haven't
> >>> had time to look).
> >>>
> >>> Is there a strong reason to go with the R syntax for multiplication
> >>> instead
> >>> of the matlab convention that a*b means a.times(b)?
> >>>
> >>
> >> As discussed, but also because matlab style elementwise operators are
> >> impossible to keep at proper precedence level in scala. It kind of has
> to
> >> start with either '*' or '%' to keep proper precedence, '.*' will not
> work
> >> unfortunately. And mix along the lines "some of Matlab, some of perhaps
> >> completely something else' does not seem appealing at all.
> >>
> >>
>



-- 

  -jake

Reply via email to