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 the
latest flavour of the month interpreted language calling highly
optimised libraries behind the scenes.

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.


I guess we view it differently. Boost.MPI isn't a language at all. It is a library written in fully ISO compliant C++, that exists to make doing an otherwise complex and error prone job simpler and more readable. As such, I would compare it to using a well tested BLAS library to do matrix manipulations in your Fortran code or writing it yourself. Both can be standard conforming Fortran (though many BLAS implementations include lower level optimized code), and neither is a flavor of the month interpreted language. The advantage of the library is that it allows you to work at a level of abstraction that may be better suited to your work.

For you, as for everyone else, make your choices based on what you believe best serves the needs of your program, whether that includes Boost.MPI or not. However, making the choices with an understanding of the options strengths and weaknesses gives the best chance of writing a good program.


PS - I am not part of the MPI Forum, but I would be surprised if they chose to add boost to any MPI version. Possibly an analog of Boost.MPI, but not all of boost. There are over 100 different libraries, covering many different areas of use in boost, and most of them have no direct connection to MPI.

PPS - If anyone would like to know more about Boost, I would suggest the website (http://www.boost.org) or the user mailing list. Folks who don't write in C++ will probably not be very interested.

Reply via email to