On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:31:04 -0700, Jason Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 3. I agree the Linbox rocks!! I've been perusing the source code, > and they've done a fantastic job making this thing really modular (in > the programming sense) and flexible at each level. I believe that the > linear algebra library I was proposing can be built within Linbox > (rather than on top of it). It just needs some C++ methods for > pickling-up their data structures for MPI passing, and the basic > routines can be naively MPI-parallelized with minimal effort. A > second round could replace the naive versions with more > parallel-specific routines; I'm very optimistic. This could really > speed up the time-table. That sentence " This could really speed up the time-table." is exactly how I feel regarding linbox. Me, Robert B., David H., and others have put a ton of effort into linear algebra in SAGE over the last few months, basically putting the right structure into place to make things easy to use and extend. But the really really hard part is having highly optimized algorithms for for certain important operations, which is exactly what Linbox has. I hope we all kind find positive ways to contribute to Linbox's future. -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
