Draft talk:Lp solve

Latest comment: 6 years ago by Ericjster in topic Why missing content?

On notability

edit

I agree that original article lacks references to reliable sources, but that's the problem with article, not lp_solve package itself.

The library itself is quite significant:

  • it is one of the few (two?) open sources LP/MILP solvers licensed under non-copyleft terms (BSD, LGPL). See Linear_programming#Solvers_and_scripting_(programming)_languages
  • google site:arxiv.org lp_solve returns ~200 articles using software (for comparison, site:arxiv.org glpk returns ~400 articles, just 2x more).
  • finally, the package is regularly updated and Sourceforge download stats show that it is quite popular.

I propose to reinstate article, and to let me improve it in a few days. I am not connected with library authors in any way, but I have experience in numericaly analysis, and I clearly see that the project is quite significant.

K.menin —Preceding undated comment added 12:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why missing content?

edit

Why is the content page for Lp_solve missing?

It is kept up to date, is one of only a few widely known non-commercial packages (see links below), has many language bindings, and permissive licensing terms. When searching for recommendations, there are many references that compare lp_solve with glpk and coin-lp (clp). The comparison papers rank it below glpk and clp in performance (CPU time and number of problems solved), but I don't think that should cause denial of a wikipedia page if its competitors have pages.

Here are a few web references that discuss lp_solve and compare the package with others.

  • http://www.tdp.cat/issues11/tdp.a114a12.pdf : 2013 paper on analysis of commercial, free, and open source lp solvers for a certain problem domain. lp_solve is one of five "popular and well-known free and open source solvers". However two of those are not free or allowed for commercial use, leaving lp_solve as one of three (glpk, lp_solve, clp).