[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Performance: Octave vs. Matlab

From: wkim+
Subject: Re: Performance: Octave vs. Matlab
Date: Tue, 02 May 95 21:49:22 -0400

> It could be spent doing other things, like improving the
> plotting or string handling capabilities.
> If you really want Octave to be faster, you have the source code, and
> you can work on making it faster.  If you do, I hope you will share
> the changes with the rest of us!

Oops, it seems to be beyond of my capability. :-)

When I mentioned "performance" issue, I thought that I could 
have missed something like 'compile' option switch that may 
boost the speed.  Unfortunately, there was no such thing.

I really thank you for your kind and responsive answers.
Octave as a user-supported 'free' software is great anyway!
I'll wait for ver. 1.2 (or 1.1.1?) for OS/2 (as I have troubles
with 1.1.0; feof() didn't work and it lacks some functions that 
I needed.).  I don't know any features of 1.1.1 or 1.2, but 1.1.0 
needs better string and file manipulations.

Oh, I have a question:  Can I pass a file pointer to my function?
Calling foo(infile) after infile=fopen("data.dat") seemed not work.
It seemed like foo() didn't know the file.

I was dealing with data file that had some texts in header,
but I was in troubles (indexing string var, feof(), getl(), etc.).
But, now I realized that I should wait for 1.1.1 or 1.2, so I just
need a quick answer to the above question for this moment.

Thanks again, John Eaton.

// Wonkoo Kim
// address@hidden

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]