JAMA definitely is good algorithm wise. API wise, it is very tied to a single representation which isn't acceptable.
If you are finding JAMA more stable, then I would be +1 (in my own non-binding way) for copying the algorithms, but -1 for adding a dependency. On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Chris Nix <chris....@gmail.com> wrote: > CM is a great package, but I email to inquire if could we could solve > easily > the issues above by simply implementing public-domain JAMA-like code within > the linear algebra sub-package or, perhaps more controversially, have JAMA > as a dependency to CM? > > Is 'home-grown' code over public-domain code an objective of Commons Math? > Like I say, it's a bold question. >
