>One of the nice things about GSL is that it's being written by people with
> knowledge of numerical computing; it's not trivial to write good
> numerical software.
It is wonderful. However I think we are speaking about two different questions:
1. Whether ROOT should provide very CERNLIB compliant C++ class methods
to facilitate the legacy CERNLIB Fortran based program transition to C++
2. Whether ROOT needs good numerical libraries. How they should be organized ?
For me we should not mix two different questions above within one discussion.
For me the answers are obvious. We do need both. However I think we should have
two or more separate libraries (In fact there is no library called CERNLIB. There are kernlib
packlib mathlib etc. On another hand I think all numerical ROOT libraries should be
similar by organization.
I think the priority should be for CERNLIB. This way we can enjoy the legacy
FORTRAN -based HEP programs those based on very CERNLIB.
If CERNLIB will be not provided quickly then people are forced to introduce
the expansive custom solutions and this way CERNLIB will be lost forever.
It would be pity.
Practically we ROOT has several such sort libraries: TMath, TCL, TPhysics.
TInverse was offered recently.
TMath, TCL and TInverse has similar organization, namely all of them provide the set
static methods. I think the low-level libraries )C++ implementation of CERNLIB algorithm)
should have this kind of organization. TPhysics is a example of the next more high level
organization.
It would be nice to see instead of the next "good idea" on this issue one more real method
implemented and tested ;-)
Cheers,
Valeri
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 11:50:40 MET