[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gcl-devel] NAG libraries
From: |
C Y |
Subject: |
Re: [Gcl-devel] NAG libraries |
Date: |
Fri, 27 Jun 2003 20:34:32 -0700 (PDT) |
--- James Amundson <address@hidden> wrote:
> > As a NAG replacement the most logical one seems to be slatec, to
> > the newbie eye at least - I suppose fortran might not help if all
> > the calls have to be redone to conform to a non-NAG interface
> > anyway.
>
> Why don't you think GSL would be the logical choice? Because it is C
> instead of Fortran? That shouldn't matter much.
If switching to C from Fortran isn't a problem as far as restructuring
axiom is concerned, then I agree GSL is definitely the logical choice.
My working assumption was that NAG Fortran calls -> SLATEC Fortran
calls would be an easier mapping than NAG Fortran calls -> GSL C calls,
but if that's not true than GSL is of course a much more logical choice
- maintained and modernized.
> > CERNLIB is largely fortran and GPLed, IIRC, but the site seems to
> > indicate they use NAG for some parts of the system so it probably
> > doesn't duplicate enough NAG functionality to be useful.
>
> Actually, the folks at CERN are considering switching from NAG to
> GSL. I don't know if a decision has been made.
Oh, cool. :-) If they do, perhaps an axiom+GSL combination could make
use of cernlib as well.
CY
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com