> -----Original Message----- > From: J.Pietschmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 3:06 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [math] proposed ordering for task list, scope of initial > release > > > Al Chou wrote: > > Finally, having used the Pietschmann root finder framework, I > think it needs > > some modification to make it more user-friendly. As a lay > user, I would have > > been much happier dealing with Brent W.'s interface than Herr > Pietschmann's, > > which was kind of cumbersome. I think, though, with a little > slimming down, it > > would be quite workable. > > I'm interested in hearung a few more details: what makes the > framework cumbersome? Admittedly I didn't have time yet to > look at Brent's framework. > > J.Pietschmann >
For clarification, I never meant for the bisection method to be the end-all for root finding. I just needed something to facilitate the distribution implementations. I would prefer using J's object approach to the static method any day, if for no reason then because of the inflexibility of static methods. They can't be overriden, they can't hold on to any state (a nice feature in J's work), they can't be subclassed, ... That being said, any design can be approved on (sorry J, even yours), but the flavor of the object approach is, IMO, more agreeable than the static method approach. It also is inline with the direction most of the library is beginning to take; complex algorithms encapsulated in strategy type objects which are interchangeable through a common interface. Brent Worden http://www.brent.worden.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
