<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">
<p>Hello Søren</p>
<p>Le 07/05/2020 à 18:24, Søren Holm a écrit :</p>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:4272984.Nx0Bj934n7@koontz">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I do however not understand why the precision and future evolution readiness -
which are features in inself - is brough into a purely language oriented
question. I'm quite sure that using C or C++ without the stuff that makes it
slow can be just as precise as anything else.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p align="justify">The discussion about precision was an attempt to
explain why PROJ 6 become larger and in some circumstances slower.
Improving the precision required a more extensive use of EPSG
geodetic database than what PROJ 4 did. Answering to the question
"what is the transformation from A to B" requires a search in the
database. PROJ 4 by contrast was trying to answer this question
with a little bit of logic in the code, which was insufficient
(the CSV files were not provided required information). It seems
hard to me to get the functionality of relatively complex queries
in a relational database with only a few changes in PROJ 4 C code,
without SQLite or something similar.<br>
</p>
<p align="justify">The discussion about future evolution was an
attempt to explain why PROJ 6 got a C++ API much larger than the
previous C API. This C++ API is a consequence of the decision to
follow OGC/ISO standards, which are a bit large but usually for
good reasons I think. The weight of ISO/OGC standards sometime
looks like useless complexity, but my experience in 20 years of
use of those standards is that (in my opinion) the geodesists who
designed them have done a pretty good job of addressing "real
world" problems that, as developers, we hardly imagine before
years.<br>
</p>
<p align="justify"> Martin</p>
<p align="justify"><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>