On Saturday, 12 October 2013 at 08:47:33 UTC, SomeDude wrote:
On Saturday, 12 October 2013 at 06:24:58 UTC, FreeSlave wrote:
For these cases we may let users to choose low-level backend
if they need. High-level interface and default implementation
are needed anyway.
I called it std.linalg because there is website
http://www.linalg.org/ about C++ library for exact
computational linear algebra. Also SciD has module
scid.linalg. We can use std.linearalgebra or something else.
Names are not really important now.
Ok, things are more clear now. Today I look what I can do.
There are litterally dozens of linear algebra packages: Eigen,
Armadillo, Blitz++, IT++, etc.
I was not complaining about the linalg name, but about the fact
that you want to make it a std subpackage. I contend that if
you want to make it a std package, it must be nearly perfect,
i.e better performing than ALL the other alternatives, even the
C++ ones, and that it's really good as an API. Else it will be
deprecated because someone will have made a better alternative.
Given the number of past tries, I consider this project is very
likely doomed to failure. So no std please.
It's not my idea to include this kind of module into std. I found
it in wish list here http://wiki.dlang.org/Wish_list so I
supposed community needs it and it should be discussed and
designed, and then implemented by someone, not necessarily by me,
though I can and will try to do it by myself. You're right, we
should to learn existing solutions firstly and then make the best
in D.
