From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "E. Robert Tisdale" To: gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: C++ wrapper Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2000 08:47:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A213D9A.43257CE3@netwood.net> X-SW-Source: 2000/msg00628.html Brian Gough wrote: > Ivo Kwee writes: > > > I am thinking to start coding up a simple (?) C++ wrapper > > providing operator overloading etc. > > Why has no one started this yet? > > Lack of resources, mainly. There is also the question > of whether it is better to spend your time wrapping a C library, > or writing a new C++ library from scratch -- > taking full advantage of the features of the language. > (I think there was an earlier thread on the mailing list > which discussed this somewhere). No. I don't think that there is much to be gained by reimplementing the GSL in C++. The C++ "wrapper" around the ANSI C implementation can be defined as "inline" so it won't cost anything. > > Anyway, I would be OK to code something up > > but I need some ready established interface specification. > > My personal opinion: > Rogue Wave's Math.h++ is an established commercial API. > I think that it is > the main commercial C++ numerical library on the market. > I wouldn't make great claims for its design, > but they have continued to sell it for a long time -- > so there must be some demand for that sort of thing. > It is worth looking at, if nothing else, > from that point of view. This API is the property of Rogue Wave. It probably can't be a standard API. The proposed SVMT API standard was inspired, in part, by the Roge Wave API but it is more up-to-date and avoids most of the more obvious the difficulties with the Rogue Wave API. > I once started doing something like that, a long time ago, > which you can see here: > > http://www.network-theory.clara.co.uk/gslrw.tar.gz I get garbage when I click on this URL.