3 ms·
I don't really trust the C++ standards committee to do a good job of it. Thinking about SIMD in an object oriented way (e.g. the way the committee typically de
by davvid 11y ago
I don't really trust the C++ standards committee to do a good job of it.
Thinking about SIMD in an object oriented way (e.g. the way the committee typically designs things) is just dead wrong
I'm curious, what makes you think that that the C++ committee would take an object-oriented approach to SIMD? Are you generally jaded on C++ (understandable, the language is by no means "simple"), or is there a specific historical precedent that suggests that it would go that way?
My sense has been that Modern C++ has been leaning towards data-driven, functional-programming-influenced features. I would actually be surprised to see C++ become "more OO", whatever that means. C++ is generally a multi-paradigm language.
- yoklov 11y agoYes, I'm a bit jaded on C++, despite using it regularly. And a functional programming approach here would suffer the same issues as an object oriented approach. The issue with both is that they like to operate on the data elements one at a time, and lay out each element in memory interleaved, and this is not what you want for SIMD most of the time. Actually functional code tends to want to abstract these details from you, which defeats a lot of the point of SIMD... so I'll ignore that.