On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 2:57 AM, Fawzi Mohamed <fmoha...@mac.com> wrote: > On 2009-10-16 11:13:59 +0200, gzp <ga...@freemail.hu> said: > >> language_fan írta: >>> >>> Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:04:09 -0400, Chad J thusly wrote: >>> >>>> I'm reminded of how annoying it is when there are different libraries >>>> for a language that all define their mathematical types differently and >>>> in incompatible ways (all of the Vec2D, Vec3D, etc ever). Also >>>> aggravating is when there is one canonical type that everyone uses, but >>>> it is a poor choice (char* in C for strings). >>>> >>> >>> Sometimes it feels like Vec3 must be the most reimplemented wheel on the >>> world. >> >> Yes, i've also started to implement my own matrix/vector library, though >> could not get too far yet, as I have to learn D meanwhile. I've checked some >> existing ones (ex. Lyla, and some other on dsource - don't remember the >> name, sorry), but my main problem was that, >> >> - the implementation could not be altered as desired (ex. I need a sparse >> matrix, where the matrix elements grouped using a quad-tree ) >> - didn't like the coding style ( ex. "_" in function names). In some >> previous post there was some discussion about this and from my experiences >> even though we found libraries that has all the capability we required, we >> did not used them. Sometimes we didn't used our colleagues (good, >> well-planned) codes either b/c the style differed so much (ex capital >> letters, "_", m prefix for members etc.) So if a language can enforce a >> style (at least giving some warnings - and turning on treat warnings as >> errors :) ), that really helps to reuse codes. Well, it's another topic... >> - too general where it is not required for me, but could not extend where >> it is needed for me >> - seemed to be hard to implement a "general" n-d geometry lib based on >> them(ex 2d/3d/nd ray, sphere, plane, etc, simplicals, space partitioning in >> n-d etc.) >> >> So it'd be really great to create a "new" d mathematical library, that is >> developed and discussed by a group. >> >> Ok, I know there are wrappers for BLAS and other C libraries, but I'd like >> to see a library written entirely in D. > > I think you are greatly underestimating the effort of making "just a library > for matrixes and vectors" > > I think that there are at least 3 areas that have quite different tradeoffs: > * small vectors/matrixes, fixed size > * large dense vector/matrixes > * sparse matrixes/vectors > > I did just dense matrixes, in blip, and blas is used if available to speed > up things when possible (default, use version noBlas noLapack to avoid using > it), lapack to implement more complex linear algebra stuff. > > For sparse matrixes Bill has hidden them in the multiarray project,
Wasn't really my intention to hide them :-)... but yes they are there in the "dflat" package of multiarray. > the > multiarray implementation there is quite slow and has some shortcomings, but > it hasn't been the focus of bill since a long time. Yeh, don't use the multiarray in the multiarray project. dflat is for sparse and dense matrices and is independent of multiarray. > But he has wrappers for sparse matrixes, and several sparse matrix libs that > he actively uses. Well less actively these days since I changed jobs. But as you can see, I still hang around here anyway, just waiting for the day D declares victory. > for small vectors/matrixes I use open math for games (omg) implementation. Best named math library evar, probly. lol. --bb
