On Fri, Oct 13, 2006 at 01:43:50PM -0700, Lubomir Bourdev wrote:
First of all, as far as we know we don't have a formal proposal from Vigra on the table, so we feel it is unfair to reject for this reason.
See http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2001/11/19803.php
Here is another perhaps more important question to the boost audience: If you have to make a choice, would you choose a library with a better design and a minimal set of existing algorithms or a library that has more stuff in it, but with not so good a design?
This is IMO not a question of either or - both GIL and Vigra have spots where they shine, and areas where they could learn from the other lib.
A related question: Which one is easier - building new functionality on top of a solid design, or extending the design of a library with lots of existing algorithms that are built on top of the old design?
What if you need to revert your design, because certain functionality is not (or not easily) implementable - and you only find out while doing that one, specific algorithm? So, seeing a lib with lots of (algorithmic) functionality kind of increases my confidence that the basic design is sound...
Merging between GIL/Vigra or especially GIL/AGG would be interesting.
To repeat: I'd at least like to have Vigra's concept of pixel accessors and promotion traits merged/applied in GIL. Cheers, -- Thorsten