[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Octave review
From: |
Daniel J Sebald |
Subject: |
Re: Octave review |
Date: |
Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:30:13 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041020 |
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
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.
I think John meant that Octave's development model has been a bazaar-like
collaboration for quite a while.
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.
More accurately, Octave's language is a superset of Matlab's. One can transfer
Matlab scripts to run under Octave fairly easily, but not necessarily the other
way around. Octave is more flexible in allowing various forms of syntax and
Octave's packages won't run under Matlab.
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.
True, it's a touted Matlab feature, but as I see it Simulink provides no extra
functionality to the core of Matlab and adds little to what makes the language
as useful as it is. Octave/Matlab's benefit is that of any computer language:
efficient processing and analysis. Simulink adds little to that.
One other thing about the review is that it tends to vilify Mathworks near the
end. I'm not lobbying for changing the review, but defending the company
perhaps. Sure they use the business model of making the software available to
schools at reduced cost to increase the user base, but that's pretty standard.
I don't see any questionable use of business practice (a bit pricey, perhaps).
As far as I can tell, it's a fairly good team of people working with educators
and researchers in the business sector. Octave will not supplant Matlab any
time soon**, and I'm not sure that was ever John's intent. Rather, Octave puts
a resource at the disposal of users who can't afford otherwise, i.e., one
doesn't have to buy their way into a scientific research community.
Dan
** An enjoyable read: http://www.nealstephenson.com/command/
- Octave review, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2009/02/06
- Message not available
- Re: Octave review, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2009/02/07
- Re: Octave review,
Daniel J Sebald <=
- Re: Octave review, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2009/02/07
- Re: Octave review, Daniel J Sebald, 2009/02/07
- Re: Octave review, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/02/07
- Re: Octave review, Daniel J Sebald, 2009/02/07
- Re: Octave review, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/02/07
- Re: Octave review, Daniel J Sebald, 2009/02/07
- Re: Octave review, David Bateman, 2009/02/08
- Re: Octave review, Francesco Potortì, 2009/02/08
- Re: Octave review, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2009/02/08