On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:49:56PM +0200, Henning Thielemann wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Keean Schupke wrote:
David Roundy wrote:
In short, especially since the folks doing the work (not me) seem to want plain old octave-style matrix operations, it makes sense to actually do that. *Then* someone can implement an ultra-uber-tensor library on top of that, if they like. And I would be interested in a nice tensor library... it's just that matrices need to be the starting point, since they're where most of the interesting algorithms are (that is, the ones that are interesting to me, such as diagonalization, svd, matrix multiplication, etc).
This is a really good idea. I would like a Matrix library soon, not in 6 years time. Slice it up into managable pieces and keep it simple!
As I said, _that_ already exists: MatLab, HaskellDSP (with some simple new definitions for infix operators) ...
Except that matlab isn't a Matrix library--it's a horribly language--and HaskellDSP doesn't seem to implement linear algebra and its interface is such that it is probably very difficult to implement efficiently (since efficient implementation means calling lapack). In my opinion a decent matrix API needs to have an opaque data type. In other words, using HaskellDSP to create a decent haskell Matrix library would be about as much work as using lapack to do so. -- David Roundy http://www.darcs.net