On Mar 29, 2018, at 7:14 AM, Maxime Boissonneault <maxime.boissonnea...@calculquebec.ca> wrote: > > If the C++ MPI bindings had been similar to Boost MPI, they would probably > have been adopted more widely and may still be alive.
FYI: the initial C++ bindings that were proposed (by me!) to the MPI Forum were a full-blown class library called OOMPI (Object Oriented MPI). After much debate, the MPI Fourm decided (rightfully, IMNSHO) that standardizing on a class library would basically be a whole new specification -- the C++ behaviors were quite different than the C/Fortran behaviors. Indeed, OOMPI was not so much *bindings* as they were *new functionality*. Ultimately, this is why the "minimal" C++ bindings were adopted: they provided very little additional behavior compared to the C or Fortran bindings. The idea was that using the few native-language features that the C++ bindings provided would allow 3rd parties to create more interesting / useful / C++-natural functionality (such as class libraries). This obviously didn't happen. When each of Boost and other C++ MPI applications opted to use the underlying C bindings, these were nails in the coffin for the MPI C++ bindings. Hence the deprecation in 2009 and the removal in 2012. -- Jeff Squyres jsquy...@cisco.com _______________________________________________ users mailing list users@lists.open-mpi.org https://lists.open-mpi.org/mailman/listinfo/users
