Another point to bring up...

I could easily write a cross-platform complex number library that is designed to take advantage of vector registers whenever possible for the absolute best performance, but there comes a problem of having multiple libraries that do the same thing and not really sticking to any standard.  People tend to stick to what they're familiar with as well, and if a tool already exists, no matter how inefficient it is, people will use that instead. That's why I opted to update an existing library while doing my best to ensure Pascal code isn't broken.  When it comes to assembly language, all bets tend to be off anyway, although once again, I argue that using assembly language to directly interface with the complex number routines is not a realistic situation, since if you're writing things in assembly language, complex numbers is one of those constructs that you would write in assembler as well for the sake of speed and efficiency.

Long story short... why would people use or update their code to use a new complex number library when one that's been tried and tested (albeit out of date) already exists?

Gareth aka. Kit

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

fpc-devel maillist  -

Reply via email to