This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
Luis Vitorio Cargnini wrote:
> 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.
I'm having problems understanding your base argument here. It seems
to be that you are afraid that Boost.MPI will make your prototype
program so much better and easier to write that you won't want to remove
it. Wouldn't this be exactly the reason why keeping it would be good?
I like and use Boost.MPI. I voted for inclusion during the review in
the Boost developer community. However, what you should do in your
program is use those tools that produce the right trade off between the
best performance, easiest to develop correctly, and most maintainable
program you can. If that means using Boost.MPI, then remember that
questions about it are answered at the Boost Users mailing list. If your
decision is that that does not include Boost.MPI then you will have some
other challenges to face but experience shows that you can still produce
a very high quality program.
Choose as you see fit, just be sure to understand your own reasons.
(Whether any of the rest of us on this list understand them or not.)