My vote was not directed toward the technical merits of the optimization
package. I am not an expert on optimization and I trust you in this regard.
My vote was a comment on the usability of the API. I find it to be
increasing difficult to use.
Maybe I have missed some refactoring, but why all of the depreicated
classes like
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>wrote:
> You have done a pretty good job in making the optimization package
>>> non-sensical to user.
>>>
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
> Check your facts ("svn log", JIRA, this ML), please: All modifications
> were done in plain sight, and responded to identified problems which
> I cared to solve.
> I do not deny that it could have raised issues for cases which I did
> not foresee. But all the requests for clearly defined
> use-cases,
> benchmarks,
> actual (i.e. working) code examples,
> have been met with unhelpful "do it yourself" statements.[1]
>
> Whatever we try here, including going somewhat in the direction you
> suggested for singling out algorithms aimed at solving a (non-linear)
> "leastsquares" problem:[2]
>
> http://markmail.org/message/**nkceta2cskpgbkug<http://markmail.org/message/nkceta2cskpgbkug>
> raises unsubstantiated criticism that never[3] translated into
> _practical_ advice[4] on how to improve the code.
>
>
> Gilles
>
> [1] What _I_ observed and used led me to try out what I think are
> improvements. I you think otherwise, _you_ have to get your hands
> dirty too.
> [2] Except that, at this point, it makes more sense for me, as a user,
> to put it under (model) "fitting" rather than "optim", for the
> reason I gave previously.
> [3] And that means: NEVER.
> [4] That is: an alternative Java code that compiles, runs and produces
> correct answers.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> dev-unsubscribe@commons.**apache.org<dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
