śr., 25 wrz 2024 o 04:27 Alfredo Correa via Boost
Second, Multi is not a numerical library specifically; it is about the logic and semantics of multidimensional arrays and containers, regardless of the element type. ...
See, this is exactly the problem. Why would I need something like that if I need to go to all the 3rd party libraries to actually use one efficiently?
The same reason some of use the standard library containers, or ranges, etc, even if they don't "do everything".
So, Artyom says that storage and element access alone is insufficient to warrant the existence of a library. Alfredo says something opposite. Alfredo, what would help here is if you demonstrated that your library has users, and have the users say why they chose it, given that they have to get the algorithms from elsewhere. Maybe you are such a user? The rest of my post is "academic", as I do not have experience in the field. Having only the storage and access abstraction would be preferred over a framework, if for your particular use case you have to employ two domains, like image-processing and generic AI/ML, and you want two sets of algorithms applied to the very same data. Then there may be no single framework that satisfies your need, and you may need to make two frameworks interoperate. Next, the analogy to STL alone is not good enough, I think. It is on you to demonstrate that the idea of generic programming also applies to *real life* usages of big multidimensional arrays. STL itself has been criticised that because it is generic, it cannot be optimized for particular types. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJJTYQYB1JQ&ab_channel=CppCon) In the context of big multi-dimensional arrays, we are talking about heavy computations. And maybe the data structures not optimized for specific use cases are simply disqualified from the outset. Please, treat it as a hint on how to communicate your ideas to people in this forum, in order to convince them. Regards, &rzej;