> From: "Richard Weidner" <richard@spartacus.jpl.nasa.gov>
> [...]
>
> Those are interesting questions. At face value, they would appear
> to pose a concept that would be of interest to all of us. The idea
> of the biggest, most extensive, most generic library would have
> some merit. A library so all encompassing as to become the standard
> for all work.
>
> My experience is that such a beast is not really a good idea.
> It can never be efficient for every practitioner.
> [...]
Of course this latter paragraph is correct. However, in my opinion it
misses the major use of a standard library, which is to give us a common
language to express our interfaces. At present we have an unappetizing
choice when creating a class library, or when using someone else's
library:
Either we have to operate in terms of float*'s etc. for maximum
portability, or we use our own Array classes, and require that our users
write the glue code that converts from MyArray to YourArray.
We need standard array classes in the *interface* because it is too hard
to get libraries to interoperate without them.
Brian
--
Brian Glendenning - National Radio Astronomy Observatory
bglenden@nrao.edu Socorro NM (505) 835-7347
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 20 2002 - 03:20:05 EST