Hi Raymond, thanks for your answer
Le 09-07-06 à 21:16, Raymond Wan a écrit :
> I've used Boost MPI before and it really isn't that bad and
> shouldn't be seen as "just another library". Many parts of Boost
> are on their way to being part of the standard and are discussed and
> debated on. And so, it isn't the same as going to some random
> person's web page and downloading their library/template. Of course,
> it takes time to make it into the standard and I'm not entirely sure
> if everything will (probably not).
> (One "annoying" thing about Boost MPI is that you have to compile
> it...if you are distributing your code, end-users might find that
> bothersome...oh, and serialization as well.)
we have a common factor, I'm not exactly distributing, but I'll add a
dependency into my code, something that bothers me.
> One suggestion might be to make use of Boost and once you got your
> code working, start changing it back. At least you will have a
> working program to compare against. Kind of like writing a
> prototype first...
Your suggestion is a great and interesting idea. I only have the fear
to get used to the Boost and could not get rid of Boost anymore,
because one thing is sure the abstraction added by Boost is
impressive, it turn the things much less painful like MPI to be
implemented using C++, also the serialization inside Boost::MPI
already made by Boost to use MPI is astonishing attractive, and of
course the possibility to add new types like classes to be able to
send objects through MPI_Send of Boost, this is certainly attractive,
but again I do not want to get dependent of a library as I said, this
is my major concern.
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s