Re: Opinions on Matlab compatibility, Octave development

[Søren Hauberg]

man, 07 06 2010 kl. 23:02 +0200, skrev Alois Schlögl:
> >> 4) Octave - specific language elements like: k++, a+=b, fun(x)(:), etc.
> >> I understand that there might be an advantage of these constructs, in
> >> terms of performance. However, it comes at the cost of incompatibility.
> >> Here, I'd like to see performance tests that are really demonstrating
> >> the advantage, so the application developers can decide themselves
> >> whether its worth using these constructs.
> >>
> > 
> > But the developers *can* decide, right?
> 
> 
> Its free software. But to be honest, I do not see an advantage of these 
> octave-specific constructs. Performance advantages are disputed, and 
> incompatibilities come with significant costs (either two different 
> implementations, one optimized for O and the other for M, or living with 
> suboptimal performance at least for some users). The benefit-cost 
> difference of these extensions seems to be mostly negative.

I highly disagree with this statement. I consider the Octave-specific
constructs to be some of the most excellent features in Octave. Whenever
I'm forced to use Matlab I spend more time yelling obscene words at the
computer then I do programming simply because I miss these features so
much.

Seriously, how can you make a procedural programming language and not
include the ++ operator? This is one (of many) areas where Matlab is
(IMHO) just so crappy that it is unbelievable. Okay, I don't want to
start a flame-war here, but I must say I love the Octave-specific
constructs and you'll have to pry them from my cold dead hands...

Søren