On 7/5/11 2:07 PM, Ted Dunning wrote: > 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.
+1 by all means if you can improve the algorithms in [math] by borrowing from Jama, patches are welcome. Some of the [math] linear algebra algorithms are already adapted from Jama. Phil > > 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. >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
