Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2024 17:30:04 +0100 From: John Maddock To: Seth via Boost

...

...

But, you making numpy-like library... otherwise you wouldn't be interfacing cblas. A clear case of diyd/diyd ("Damned If You Do, Damned If You Don't"). Of all the features you're missing here you decry "At least show ways to interoperate with existing thirdparty libraries". Now, they went and did that (if I'm not mistaken, clearly marked as an extension that might not even be part of the proposed library), and you decry that. There's no winning.

+1, I've only been lurking in this conversation, but it seems to me that trying to compete with low level and highly optimized BLAS libraries is a fools errand.

I completely agree, I am not even going to try to include vectorized operations inside this library, even as a specialized cases But I will do anything I can for people to be able to exploit them when possible through algorithms and execution policies. At most what I am doing is to interface with BLAS the best I can with some features that are unique to the library in what personally I think is a fairly original way. (capturing a functional-programming interface). Other *numerical* libraries went that way and that is commendable. Thank all for the feedback, Alfredo