I see now Dragan; you're concerned not about whether easily implementing and swapping in/out implementations of core.matrix is possible, but whether it can be done while maintaining the performance characteristics of Neanderthal, yes? That did not come through in your earlier comments in this thread.
Certainly, performance is one of those things that can leak in an abstraction. But I'd like to echo Matt's enquiry: If you think a unified API might be possible but that core.matrix isn't it, I think we'd all love to hear what you think it's missing and/or what would would need to be rearchitected in order for it to fit the bill. As for any sort of "responsibility" to implement core.matrix, I don't think anyone is arguing you have such a responsibility, and I hope our _pleading_ hasn't come across as such. We are simply impressed with your work, and would like to take advantage of it, but also see a "drawback" you don't: at present Neanderthal is less interoperable with many existing tools, and "trying it out" on an existing project would require a rewrite (as would migrating away from it if we weren't happy). Certainly, a third party library implementing core.matrix with Neanderthal is a possibility, but I'm a bit worried that a) it would add extra burden keeping things in sync and feel a little second class; and more importantly b) it might be easier to maintain more of the performance benefits if it's directly integrating (I could imagine less indirection this way, but could be totally wrong). So let me ask you this: Assuming a) someone forks Neanderthal and makes a core.matrix implementation with close performance parity to the direct Neanderthal API and/or b) folks working on core.matrix are able to address some of your issues with the core.matrix architecture, would you consider a merge? With gratitude Chris On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 1:45 PM, Matt Revelle <mreve...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, June 19, 2015 at 4:57:32 AM UTC-4, Dragan Djuric wrote: >> >> I do not even claim that an unified api is not possible. I think that to >> some extent it is. I just doubt in core.matrix eligibility for THE api in >> numerical computing. For it makes easy things easy and hard things >> impossible. > > > Are you saying you don't believe core.matrix should be _the_ abstract API > for matrices/arrays in Clojure? If so, what are your concerns? Feel free to > point to me a previous post if it's already been stated. It also sounds > like you're alluding to the thread in the Numerical Clojure group about a > broad "numerical computing lib" for complex numbers and various math > functions, but I'm not following how that matters here. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Clojure" group. > To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com > Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with > your first post. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "Clojure" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/clojure/dFPOOw8pSGI/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
