[Mpi-forum] Boost MPI as a C++ binding replacement
ftillier at microsoft.com
Fri Dec 9 00:02:15 CST 2011
I believe the argument wasn't that Boost MPI was complete, but rather that the Boost MPI model was a better fit for C++ than the MPI standard C++ bindings.
To me, the current state of having the C++ bindings deprecated, yet adding new deprecated bindings for only a subset of MPI-3 functionality is terrible - it is inconsistent and sloppy. I would like the standard to be consistent, and at this point it seems that the "move the C++ bindings to a removed chapter" (ticket 281) idea has the broadest support. I don't think anybody that has been vocal against removing the C++ bindings has been willing to step up to the plate and drive a proposal, unfortunately, partly because the straw votes held at the past few Forum meetings showed that investing in a proposal would be futile.
Personally, as long as the C++ bindings are optional, I don't really care what happens to them and could likely be convinced to support undeprecating them.
Jeff Hammond wrote on Thu, 8 Dec 2011 at 15:58:35
> Lots of people have commented that Boost MPI is better than the standard
> C++ bindings and cited it as an example of why the C++ bindings are
> unnecessary. I think that everyone who feels this way should inspect
> Consider the things that Boost MPI explicitly states that it does not support:
> PMPI_* routines
> They don't even both to mention that they do not support RMA, MPI-IO,
> MPI_Init_thread and a bunch of other functions I've left out because
> they weren't mentioned on the Boost MPI page.
> So yeah, my point is that Boost MPI is not even close to a reasonable
> replacement for C++ bindings and it suggests that third-party C++
> bindings are unlikely to support more than a handful of very popular
> MPI functions.
More information about the mpi-forum