The open source solvers are a mess of 30 years of PhD students random contributions. It's amazing they work at all. If you can possibly avoid actually implementing anything using them you will.
Can others chime in? To what extent is the above this a fair summary?
I would hope there have been some code reorganizations and maybe even rewrites? Perhaps as the underlying theory advances? Perhaps as the ecosystem of tools borrows from each other?
But I don’t know the state of these solvers. In many ways, the above narrative wouldn’t surprise me. I can be rather harsh (but justifiably so I feel) when evaluating scientific tooling.
I worked at one national lab with a “prestigious” reputation that nonetheless seemed to be incapable of blending competent software architecture with its domain area. I’m not saying any ideal solution was reachable; the problem arguably had to do with an overzealous scope combined with budgetary limits and cultural disconnects. Many good people working with a flawed plan seems to me.
I would hope there have been some code reorganizations and maybe even rewrites? Perhaps as the underlying theory advances? Perhaps as the ecosystem of tools borrows from each other?
But I don’t know the state of these solvers. In many ways, the above narrative wouldn’t surprise me. I can be rather harsh (but justifiably so I feel) when evaluating scientific tooling. I worked at one national lab with a “prestigious” reputation that nonetheless seemed to be incapable of blending competent software architecture with its domain area. I’m not saying any ideal solution was reachable; the problem arguably had to do with an overzealous scope combined with budgetary limits and cultural disconnects. Many good people working with a flawed plan seems to me.