Open MPI logo

Open MPI User's Mailing List Archives

  |   Home   |   Support   |   FAQ   |   all Open MPI User's mailing list

Subject: Re: [OMPI users] MPI and C++ (Boost)
From: Terry Frankcombe (terry_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-07-06 23:27:54

On Mon, 2009-07-06 at 23:09 -0400, John Phillips wrote:
> 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.)

I understand Luis' position completely. He wants an MPI program, not a
program that's written in some other environment, no matter how
attractive that may be. It's like the difference between writing a
numerical program in standard-conforming Fortran and writing it in the
latest flavour of the month interpreted language calling highly
optimised libraries behind the scenes.

IF boost is attached to MPI 3 (or whatever), AND it becomes part of the
mainstream MPI implementations, THEN you can have the discussion again.


Dr. Terry Frankcombe
Research School of Chemistry, Australian National University
Ph: (+61) 0417 163 509    Skype: terry.frankcombe