Re: [Help-gsl] comparison to numeric calculation software application

[ozgur]

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Brian Gough <address@hidden> wrote:

> At Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:13:21 -0500,
> Jason Lillywhite wrote:
> > After reading a little about gsl and trying bindings in Scheme and
> > Ruby, I have come to feel that GSL is comparable to matlab, scilab, or
> > mathimatica. But since then, have been told by some that I might be
> > off a little. How much are we missing out on by using GSL instead of
> > say, Matlab when it comes to numerical methods. BTW - I am a beginner
> > in MatLab, GSL, and numerical methods.
>
> See GNU Octave http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/
> It is a GNU replacement for Matlab.
>
> --
> Brian Gough
> (GSL Maintainer)
>
> Support freedom by joining the FSF
> http://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join_fsf?referrer=37
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Help-gsl mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gsl
>

If you consider using an environment with a Lispish syntax and builtin
support for GSL see also Lush.

http://lush.sourceforge.net/

Lush is both interpreted and compiled via C. It is suitable for both rapid
prototyping and "hardcore" numeric computation. See Lush helptool for
details. A small performance benchmark of Lush compared to Octave resides in
its FAQs:

http://lush.sourceforge.net/faq.html

If you consider using GSL from Common Lisp take a look at GSLL Common Lisp
interface:

http://common-lisp.net/project/gsll/


-- 
Ozgur