On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Barry Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Sep 27, 2014, at 12:10 AM, Jed Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: > > > >> Perhaps we erred in keeping the thread/task management/model code > >> in PETSc as opposed to a small portable library? We should revisit > >> this, but unfortunately cannot before next Wednesday :-), or can we > >> :-) > > > > I was at the BLIS workshop yesterday and today discussing this with > > Field and a guy at Q-Chem. I think an independent library is desirable > > in the long term, but I don't think it's something that we can "win" in > > the sense of having everyone adopt our library. So we'll always need to > > interoperate with other systems. > > Sure, but it will be easier to interoperate with other systems if it is > a small, non-PETSc dependent beast. My questions would be: - does it help development if it is independent - does it help adoption if it is independent I am not sure the answer to either of these is yes. Matt > > Barry > > > -- What most experimenters take for granted before they begin their experiments is infinitely more interesting than any results to which their experiments lead. -- Norbert Wiener
