On 05.11.2008, at 17:16, Mark H. wrote: > and replace copies with destructive writes. I haven't seen a purely > functional formulation of LU factorization but it could be done > without too much trouble. Of course there's no reason to go through > that effort because people spend so much time optimizing LU and its > constituent components that you would be better off reusing their > work.
For the immediate future, yes. But with changing computer architectures, the existing algorithms and routines may lose much of their interest in the future. > To me the more interesting and rewarding task is to figure out how to > splice existing HPC libraries into a functional framework, without > losing the ability to reason functionally about the components. Unfortunately, it is already a bit of a pain to link existing HPC libraries (written in Fortran, C, or C++) to functional code in any decent language. Clojure won't help there, as there are still very few HPC libraries for the JVM and JNI adds too much of an overhead. > Definitely! We've got at least one fellow here who uses Common Lisp > to generate stencil codes. He's been thinking about switching to > Clojure ever since he and I worked on a thorny Lisp problem > together ;-) I am looking forward to a nice Clojure library then :-) Konrad. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
