Re: [lmi] overview of C++ expression template libraries

[Vadim Zeitlin]

[This must be some kind of necroposting record, as while I'm replying to a
 barely 12.5 year old message, the beginning of this thread dates back to
 https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/lmi/2005-08/msg00034.html that I
 reference here if, by chance, you don't recall the details of the post
 from almost 16 years ago]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 20:16:08 +0000 Greg Chicares <gchicares@sbcglobal.net> 
wrote:

GC> On 2007-01-08 14:23Z, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > 
GC> >  I don't see anything against PETE except that it doesn't seem clear
GC> > whether it's actively maintained.
GC> 
GC> There's no recent maintenance activity AFAICT.

 This is still the case today and, I think, it's safe to say there will
never be any. Yet, lmi still uses PETE and you've been extending its use
recently -- which is the motivation for this post, of course, as I wonder
if it could make sense to have another look at the ET libraries using
modern C++ in case we can find something "better" than PETE.

 "Better" needs to be defined, of course, but I'm quite sure that we should
be able to find something even easier to manage (regenerating PETE files is
probably not too bad, although I've never done it myself, but there is just
no reason to ever do any generation at all since C++ got variadic
templates) and much faster (if only because PETE doesn't attempt to do any
vectorization whatsoever, let alone use GPU for it, as some of the
libraries now do).

 It's probably not very urgent to replace it, but personally I think it
might be worthwhile to do at least a "due diligence" verification and check
that we can't easily a lot in performance by just switching to another
library. Please let me know if you agree and think it would be worthwhile.

 Thanks,
VZ

pgp_fswK34gLv.pgp
Description: PGP signature