GNU MPC 1.0 "Fagus silvatica" released
GNU MPC 1.0 "Fagus silvatica" released
Posted Jul 23, 2012 0:23 UTC (Mon) by pr1268 (guest, #24648)Parent article: GNU MPC 1.0 "Fagus silvatica" released
arbitrarily high precision and correct rounding of the result
Why do we need another library for complex numbers? Aren't these already supported in GSL and/or GMP? And what about complex.h I found in /usr/include?
Posted Jul 23, 2012 0:33 UTC (Mon)
by josh (subscriber, #17465)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jul 23, 2012 9:03 UTC (Mon)
by rwst (guest, #84121)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jul 23, 2012 18:42 UTC (Mon)
by wahern (subscriber, #37304)
[Link]
Maybe part of the reason not to use Pari/GP is because it's not organized in a fashion that makes it suitable for all of these different uses.
Also, maybe there's no reason at all. Perhaps it just ended up that one developer used MPC for something, which got used by somebody else, etc. IOW, path dependency.
Posted Jul 23, 2012 0:36 UTC (Mon)
by jreiser (subscriber, #11027)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Jul 23, 2012 0:42 UTC (Mon)
by josh (subscriber, #17465)
[Link] (6 responses)
One detail, though: GNU MP supports arbitrary precision rationals and floats, not just integers.
Posted Jul 23, 2012 9:06 UTC (Mon)
by rwst (guest, #84121)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Jul 23, 2012 13:09 UTC (Mon)
by jengelh (guest, #33263)
[Link]
Posted Jul 23, 2012 15:10 UTC (Mon)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (2 responses)
This is the first release of MPC as a GNU project, so it was originally written independently of the GNU project, so the motives for it being developed in the first place don't come from GNU.
Posted Jul 23, 2012 15:56 UTC (Mon)
by JohnLenz (guest, #42089)
[Link] (1 responses)
I was curious to see how old the projects were, and revision 1 of MPC was January 2003. PARI is a little older at September 1999 but it seems like those early versions of PARI had some wierd non-commercial license. Maybe MPC was started before PARI switched to the GPL? In any case, they are both old projects.
Posted Jul 23, 2012 19:27 UTC (Mon)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link]
To cut any speculation: the MPC developers were well-aware of PARI/GP when they decided to write MPC (and conversely, the PARI/GP developers were well-aware of MPC development).
Posted Jul 23, 2012 16:51 UTC (Mon)
by stevenj (guest, #421)
[Link]
Posted Jul 23, 2012 16:46 UTC (Mon)
by stevenj (guest, #421)
[Link]
GNU MPC 1.0 "Fagus silvatica" released
and Pari/GP
and Pari/GP
GNU MPC 1.0 "Fagus silvatica" released
GNU MPC 1.0 "Fagus silvatica" released
GNU MPC 1.0 "Fagus silvatica" released
GNU MPC 1.0 "Fagus silvatica" released
1. MPC is a GNU project.
2. MPC is LGPL3+, PARI is GPL2 (but even that it conveys in an ambiguous fashion).
3. PARI is not autotoolized.
4. PARI's coding style is not GNU (important for the GNU style police!)
5. Something that I have noticed as a distro-level packager: Scientific software often is subpar in code quality, like breaking strict-aliasing and whatnot.
GNU MPC 1.0 "Fagus silvatica" released
GNU MPC 1.0 "Fagus silvatica" released
GNU MPC 1.0 "Fagus silvatica" released
The GIT repository start a bit before version 2.0.17 (1999/09/16).
The first release under the GNU GPL was 2.1.0 (2000/11/17).
There is an obvious reason why GNU would adopt MPC rather than PARI: MPC is designed exclusively as an extension of GNU MP and GNU MPFR, whereas PARI has its own multiprecision arithmetic implementation (although it can optionally use GMP). It makes sense for GNU to centralize on a single MP library.
MPC is built on exclusively top of GMP, PARI is not
What seems to have been missed in this thread is the fact that MPC is not a competitor for GMP, MPC is built on top of GMP. (See the "Requirements" on the MPC web page.)
MPC is built on top of GMP