Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" <dev@commons.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of gsterijevski@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.43 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 00:05:00 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CACMPRi1bqW9MPeeF+7kfv=VH+mnXh+UXm2sYkTN7VqTYboqFKw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [math] Multiple Algorithms
From: Greg Sterijevski <gsterijevski@gmail.com>
To: dev@commons.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0015174c34eed6df3704abda2fbf

--0015174c34eed6df3704abda2fbf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Hello All,

This question popped into my head this evening, what is the right way to
handle multiple algorithms which purport to calculate the same thing? There
are, for example, a couple of ways to calculate the student t cdf. What is
the common's philosophy on deciding:

1. Whether to allow multiple algorithms.
2. How an algorithm is included.
    a.) Does a 'bug' or shortcoming need to be shown in the current
implementation?
    b.) Say that algorithm a works for a numerical range and b works best on
another. Are both included? Is a new 'meta' algorithm written which mixes
both a and b?
3. Does simplicity count?
4. Does speed matter?

A while back, Chris Nix reimplemented the SVD routine. I am not sure I
remember the old routine so I cannot say there was anything worth keeping
there. However was there a conscious decision to scrap it? Why not have it
live side by side with the new one? (Again, I am not saying the old
algorithm was better-Chris' contribution definitely was valuable). I think
we will run into these issues often.

Thoughts? If this has been discussed already, my apologies.

-Greg

--0015174c34eed6df3704abda2fbf--