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out of date) already exists?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.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
