On Wed, Sep 25, 2024 at 9:37 PM Andrzej Krzemienski wrote:

czw., 26 wrz 2024 o 04:25 Alfredo Correa napisał(a):

...

Hi Andrzej,

Thanks for the continued conversation.

...

From: Andrzej Krzemienski Subject: [boost] [multi] A successor to Boost.MultiArray

Don't get me wrong, BMA was a tour-de-force at the time. It even spearheaded C++ concept checking in C++98, which I have delayed integrating into the library until C++20 Concepts.

C++98 compatibility may be a good reason. Other than that, the lack of responsiveness could be an indication that a library needs a new maintainer, and then you could replace the implementation. But it would surely not be C++98-compliant.

There are many precedents of Boost libraries that provide new implementations of libraries with similar. Boost.variant2 and Boost.Parser are recent examples, there might be others.

...

* The same questions, "is it useful at all", apply also to

...

Boost.MultiArray.

BMA is useful in principle and was a great leap forward then. In practice, it is unfortunately almost unusable. You can tour Stackoverflow questions on #boost-multi-array and see all its pain points.

I am suggesting this still in the context of documenting a solid motivation for why Multi is useful. If the users of BMA have their story to tell, you could use it as well for your motivation. But if you are saying BMA is unusable, and maybe unused, then there may not be much to take. This could also be an indication that Artyom is correct, and that the need for a container alone may be scarce.

Yes, as I said, if a container is not enough I am okay with that. I claim that this is not just a container; it is also a generator of views (part of what functions in ranges like drop, take, subrange, chunk_by, etc. provide), but all seamlessly integrated in the same underlying data structure. And it is a whole suite of features that worm together to 1) implement algorithms, 2) interface efficiently and nicely with tens of existing C libraries that work with this datastructure. I think this is valuable but others might disagree strongly; I accept that. My *dream* is that a well designed interface for this classic data structure will initiate a golden age of multidimensional algorithms that are a generalization of STL (which BTW is also criticized for being one-dimensional centric). Of course, this is a monumental task; that eventually I could integrate it into Multi. Putting a few selected exemplars of such multidimensional algorithms is as much as I can hope for since I am working by myself. (In place of that I decided to provide the adaptors.) I also accept that generic programming might not be fashionable in this decade. In which case the product wouldn't be as valuable.

...

I don't know how you conclude this is for small-sized data? Do you mean that vector> would be ok for large-size data in contrast? I don't think so.

No. Sorry, I brought up two separate points. One point is that if you need a multidimensional array Multi is always superior to vector>. So if you happen to use a nested vector in your program, you can optimize and improve your program cheaply by employing Multi.

Sure, that can be used for teaching of course. Vector

The other, separate, point is in the context of a critique that a general-purpose multidimensional array container cannot compete with tailored frameworks for huge dataset processing that require domain-based optimizations.

yes, that is not the intention of Multi. I don't want to compete with frameworks. I feel that, together with STL algorithms and a few adaptors, Multi is already very powerful. Even if true, Multi has its use for small-sized data. The user experience

would be: the following. I have an idea to solve a problem using a multidimensional array. First I prototype a solution, and for this I use Multi.

I won't discourage this kind of use. I am convinced that the library can do prototyping and beyond. Then the prototype demonstrates that my solution will work, I need to

implement a production ready, super-optimized version, and for this I use a framework, like OpenCV.

That can be an option, another option would be to add an ad-hoc OpenCV adaptor (following the examples in the adaptors directory) so that one doesn't lose the nice things of Multi. Here Multi still plays an important role in enabling prototyping.

sure. Boost.Spirit has such an advertising technique ("use this library for small

and medium parsers").

...

I would agree if you mean “small” in the sense of simple, consice code. I don't think there is a penalty on using Multi for storing large data. It is not that arrays become “slower” when they are big. (well that depends on caches and access patterns but that is a different story) The data structure is equally simple for large and small arrays.

...

...

As a side note, when comparing Multi with std::mdspan. The latter requires C++23, while the former, only C++17. So, when someone has C++17, mdspan is not an option.

yes

...

BTW, why do you require C++17?

- The main reason was for ease of development: - implementing allocator propagation without if-constexpr is a nightmare. - c++17 provides polymorphic allocators, and I wanted to be compatible with them (at the time, I didn't know about __has_include, it was much simpler to just use C++17) - If I remember correctly, I could use some constexpr algorithms and make the arrays fully constexpr.

...

These are not hard reasons to require C++17. I can port it to C++14 as soon as any user asks for it, but it hasn't happened yet. In fact, Vinnie Falco promised a gazillion dollars from Microsoft to port it back to C++14. ;P ( https://cpplang.slack.com/archives/C27KZLB0X/p1682786897070269)

This is not a request. Just an observation that it would make the library even more competitive.

yes, so far the question has been hypothetical, the library can be ported back to C++14 when someone (or Bill Gates) ask for it. Thanks Alfredo

Regards, &rzej;

Thank you,

...

Alfredo