Hi, I think you have a misconception there: Armadillo is the reinventing of the wheel, uBLAS is much much older (I think it was created around 2002 or so). There are strong points against uBLAS but also a few quite good in favour of it. For example neither newmat nor armadillo support sparse vectors. uBLAS doesn't have maximum performance but a very rich feature set which is hard to find in any other library. Since I am also only a boost user I can not answer "why don't you adopt X?" questions :). Greetings, Oswin On 2012-04-03 11:21, delryn@gmx.de wrote:
Good day,
i started using boost one month ago. Now i saw that boost is offering uBLAS to use/manipulate matrices. So my question is: Why is the wheel invented totally new? The uBLAS-Team even writes that they focus an "correct algorithm" and that "performance will be improved later".
Why cant boost simply adpot http://arma.sourceforge.net/
or Newmat 11:
http://www.robertnz.net/nm11.htm#refer
I used Newmat in many complex commercial projects where performance was very important. Newmat is easy to use and I dont now any bugs. Maybe the interface is not totally stl compatible, but this library is very easy and intuitive to use.
What do you think about this?