Re: Status of development /Benchmarks

All Riccardo's remark have my vote.

On 12/07/2013 01:50 PM, Riccardo Rossi wrote:
> Dear David,
>
> all of the thins you poin out are nice ... if i could add something to 
> the wish list i woul like to add a few items:
> 1 - please mantain some sort of backward compatibility for people that 
> do not use internals... functions as noalias, prod innner_prod etc, 
> while not strictly needed do not make any harm and maintaining them 
> woul make people's life easier in the migration...
> 2 - clearly separate where openmp is going to be used (for example 
> sparse and large dense matrices) and where not ("tiny" matrices both 
> in stack and heap). this is important as one needs to avoid nested 
> openmp parallelism
> 3 - it would be nice to have more c interoperability with the 
> internals of sparse matrices. this would make much easier to wrie wrappers
> 4 - consider pastix as a direct solver apart for mumps. it is really 
> good and actively developed...
>
> good luck with your effort
> ciao
> Riccardo
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 11:38 AM, David Bellot <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>     Hi,
>
>     it has been a long discussion we all had for many months now.
>     Should we rewrite ublas from scratch or simply improve it.
>     Joaquim and Oswin wants a brand new ublas
>     Nasos was more in favor of improving it.
>
>     I personally find very exciting the idea of writing something new,
>     but ublas is very well known now. On the other hand, Eigen and
>     Armadillo took the crown of the main C++ blas library in users'
>     hearts.
>
>     On my todo list for ublas, there are things that will require
>     ublas to be deeply changed. At this stage, we can almost talk
>     about a new library.
>
>     Christmas is very close now, so maybe it's a good time to start
>     talking about the features we wish for ublas and see if they can
>     be implemented with the current version or if a new uBLAS 2.0 is
>     necessary.
>     After all, Boost::signal did the same a few years ago. We can
>     definitively do the transition.
>
>
>     I begin:
>
>     - unified representation of vectors and matrices to represent the
>     fact that a vector IS a matrix. Matlab does the same
>     - automated use of different algorithm to let the compiler
>     "chooses" the best implementation (if possible) and switch on SSE,
>     distributed or whateve we need
>     - implementation of solvers and decompositions algorithms
>
>     and this is what Nasos and I think should be integrated too:
>     1. Matrix multiplication
>     2. Algorithms infrastructure (so that we can have real useful
>     features)
>     3. Matrix/vector views for interoperability <- I think this is
>     ultra critical because now ublas is monolithic in the sense that
>     you have to use it everywhere you manipulate data. This would
>     really help into letting people for example have a list of vectors
>     (they are plotting) and ublas working on top of that to do for
>     example transformations
>     4. NEW DOCUMENTATION - examples and the rest
>     5. Incorporate some critical bindings (i.e. mumps bindings which
>     is currently probably the most efficient smp and distributed open
>     source linalg solver)
>     6. matlab binding?
>     7. distributed ublas
>
>
>     Please add and ESPECIALLY, please tell me your view on the current
>     infrastructure of uBLAS. It seems many people are not happy with
>     the current "expression template" grammar.
>
>     I'm open to everything
>
>     Best,
>     David
>
>
>     On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Joaquim Duran
>     <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>         I think that al stuff pending of merge listed by David, should
>         be merged and migrate to uBlas 2.0 and while uBlas 2.0 is in
>         development/maintenance then design from scratch uBlas 3.0.
>
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     ublas mailing list
>     [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>     http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas
>     Sent to: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
>
> Dr. Riccardo Rossi, Civil Engineer
>
> Member of Kratos Team
>
> International Center for Numerical Methods in Engineering - CIMNE
> Campus Norte, Edificio C1
>
> c/ Gran Capitán s/n
>
> 08034 Barcelona, España
>
> Tel: (+34) 93 401 56 96
>
> Fax: (+34) 93.401.6517
>
> web:www.cimne.com <http://www.cimne.com/>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ublas mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/ublas
> Sent to: [email protected]