Re: Octave review

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

2009/2/7 John W. Eaton <address@hidden>:
> Here are some comments about specific passages.
>
>  At any rate, jwe first wrote Octave for his chemical engineering
>  students, so that they would have something to work with
>
> I've never had students.

Oops, fixed.

> so that is the real reason that I started work on Octave.

Edited that.

> I was the original author of what is now the man-db package.
> But there have been a number of other implementations of the man
> program, and I'm not sure mine could even be considered the first used
> on early GNU/Linux systems.

I've edited this slightly to say that you wrote the original man-db
package, and I'll leave it at that.

>
>  Since Octave is free software, its development is quite open
>
> The ideas of free software (the freedom to share and modify, etc.)
> does not necessarily imply a collaborative development process.

But surely there is some connection? I've rewritten this to read: "In
part due because Octave is free software..."

>  It used to be that jwe had the final authority on what code could be
>  committed to the sources, but since he moved the code from an
>  antiquated CVS repository to Mercurial, many other developers have
>  been granted write access to the source tree, fostering a more
>  bazaar-like collaboration mode
>
> I think this confuses the details of the particular version control
> system with the development model.

Okay, I have reworded this to suggest that the change of write access
to the source tree happening with the move from CVS to Mercurial is
simply a coincidence.

>  The syntax is identical to Matlab's syntax
>
> It's close, but there are some differences.

What are we missing as far as syntax goes? I thought it was only
specific functions that are missing, or features like object
orientation.

I've reworded this to say that the syntax is near identical to Matlab's.

>  Simulink, which I've never personally used but I understand is an
>  important reason for the foothold Matlab has as a de-facto standard
>  in the numeric community
>
> I think simulink is a fairly specialized tool and I don't get the
> sense that it is somehow responsible for Matlab's success.

It seems that in discussions of Matlab's success, Simulink frequently
comes up as a touted Matlab feature. I've rewritten this to make it
seem like a less important reason.

>  it has been determined by the developers that implementing just-in
>  time compiling for Octave is prohibitively expensive and not really
>  worth it in the end
>
> I wouldn't say it isn't worth it, but that it is not a trivial
> project.

I've rewritten this too, omitting any indication if it's worth it or not.

Thanks for your suggestions.

- Jordi G. H.