Luis Vitorio Cargnini wrote:
Ok, after all the considerations, I'll try Boost, today, make some
experiments and see if I can use it or if I'll avoid it yet.
But as said by Raimond I think, the problem is been dependent of a
rich-incredible-amazing-toolset but still implementing only
Ok, after all the considerations, I'll try Boost, today, make some
experiments and see if I can use it or if I'll avoid it yet.
But as said by Raimond I think, the problem is been dependent of a
rich-incredible-amazing-toolset but still implementing only
MPI-1, and do not implement
I think you face a common trade-off:
- use a well-established, debugged, abstraction-rich library
- write all of that stuff yourself
FWIW, I think the first one is a no-brainer. There's a reason they
wrote Boost.MPI: it's complex, difficult stuff, and is perfect as
middleware for others to
> IF boost is attached to MPI 3 (or whatever), AND it becomes part of the
> mainstream MPI implementations, THEN you can have the discussion again.
Hi,
At the moment, I think that Boost.MPI only supports MPI1.1, and even
then, some additional work may be done, at least regarding the complex
Hi Luis,
Luis Vitorio Cargnini wrote:
Your suggestion is a great and interesting idea. I only have the fear to
get used to the Boost and could not get rid of Boost anymore, because
one thing is sure the abstraction added by Boost is impressive, it turn
I should add that I fully
Terry Frankcombe wrote:
I understand Luis' position completely. He wants an MPI program, not a
program that's written in some other environment, no matter how
attractive that may be. It's like the difference between writing a
numerical program in standard-conforming Fortran and writing it in
On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 23:09 -0400, John Phillips wrote:
> Luis Vitorio Cargnini wrote:
> >
> > Your suggestion is a great and interesting idea. I only have the fear to
> > get used to the Boost and could not get rid of Boost anymore, because
> > one thing is sure the abstraction added by Boost
Luis Vitorio Cargnini wrote:
Your suggestion is a great and interesting idea. I only have the fear to
get used to the Boost and could not get rid of Boost anymore, because
one thing is sure the abstraction added by Boost is impressive, it turn
the things much less painful like MPI to be
Hi Raymond, thanks for your answer
Le 09-07-06 à 21:16, Raymond Wan a écrit :
I've used Boost MPI before and it really isn't that bad and
shouldn't be seen as "just another library". Many parts of Boost
are on their way to being part of the standard and are discussed and
debated on. And
Hi Luis,
Luis Vitorio Cargnini wrote:
Thanks, but I really do not want to use Boost.
Is easier ? certainly is, but I want to make it using only MPI itself
and not been dependent of a Library, or templates like the majority of
boost a huge set of templates and wrappers for different
10 matches
Mail list logo
