[Haskell-cafe] Re: ANNOUNCE: A Levenberg-Marquardt implementation

[Xiao-Yong Jin]

Maurí­cio CA <mauricio.antunes at gmail.com> writes:

>> That's been said, it is still your package. And people can
>> always change the build scripts for their own needs.
>
> Not actually! I didn't work on bindings-levmar. I'm just the guy
> who started the idea of having low level bindings packages as
> basis for higher level bindings (so that this kind of problem
> can be solved at the same time for many, say, levmar high level
> bindings). That's why I would like to help acchieving good general
> guides for easy building. Wrapping of levmar is entirely van Dijk
> brothers' work.

Sorry, I didn't mean that.  I was just trying to say that it
might be wiser to put in a configure script like most of the
open source software do.  It does not need to be very
complicated, because usually people know what they are doing
when they want to link against different optimized
libraries.  The one[1] provided by hmatrix[2] is sufficient and
easy to use for most of the purposes.

[1] http://perception.inf.um.es/cgi-bin/darcsweb.cgi?r=hmatrix;a=headblob;f=/configure.hs
[2] http://www.hmatrix.googlepages.com/

In the case of hmatrix, it is good that you only need to run

$ cabal install hmatrix -fmkl

to build it against Intel mkl instead of the default
BLAS/LAPACK.  And you can also add other shared libraries to
link against as a command line switch when you run `cabal
install'.

I just don't see the problem with bindings-levmar.  Because
compared with bindings-levmar, hmatrix actually needs GSL,
BLAS and LAPACK, but it builds fine on hackage and the
documents[3] are very well built.

[3] http://hackage.haskell.org/cgi-bin/hackage-scripts/package/hmatrix

Just my 2 cents.
Xiao-Yong
-- 
    c/*    __o/*
    <\     * (__
    */\      <