In the own words of the developers as seen in In the following section it should be In there own wordsĬompatibility with Matlab. > can point out omissions or improvements to it, please do so. > as it has to be for a review) I am writing to request that anyone who > Although I wouldn't want to wikify it (I want to keep my voice in it, > important advantages and drawbacks of Octave as it currently stands. > some facts wrong, and I also probably neglected to mention other > I rewrote it today updating what I know, but I know I probably have
> feel more responsible for what I wrote in it. > Google hit when looking for "octave review", so now I am starting to Rather, Octave putsĪ resource at the disposal of users who can't afford otherwise, i.e., oneĭoesn't have to buy their way into a scientific research community.> It's come to my attention that a writeup of mine comes as the first Time soon**, and I'm not sure that was ever John's intent. I don't see any questionable use of business practice (a bit pricey, perhaps).Īs far as I can tell, it's a fairly good team of people working with educatorsĪnd researchers in the business sector. Schools at reduced cost to increase the user base, but that's pretty standard.
GNU OCTAVE REVIEW SOFTWARE
Sure they use the business model of making the software available to I'm not lobbying for changing the review, but defending the company One other thing about the review is that it tends to vilify Mathworks near theĮnd. Octave/Matlab's benefit is that of any computer language:Įfficient processing and analysis. True, it's a touted Matlab feature, but as I see it Simulink provides no extraįunctionality to the core of Matlab and adds little to what makes the languageĪs useful as it is. It seems that in discussions of Matlab's success, Simulink frequentlyĬomes up as a touted Matlab feature. Sense that it is somehow responsible for Matlab's success. I think simulink is a fairly specialized tool and I don't get the Important reason for the foothold Matlab has as a de-facto standard Simulink, which I've never personally used but I understand is an Octave's packages won't run under Matlab. Octave is more flexible in allowing various forms of syntax and Matlab scripts to run under Octave fairly easily, but not necessarily the other More accurately, Octave's language is a superset of Matlab's. I've reworded this to say that the syntax is near identical to Matlab's.
Specific functions that are missing, or features like object What are we missing as far as syntax goes? I thought it was only It's close, but there are some differences. The syntax is identical to Matlab's syntax I think John meant that Octave's development model has been a bazaar-like
To the source tree happening with the move from CVS to Mercurial is Okay, I have reworded this to suggest that the change of write access I think this confuses the details of the particular version control
GNU OCTAVE REVIEW CODE
It used to be that jwe had the final authority on what code could beĬommitted to the sources, but since he moved the code from anĪntiquated CVS repository to Mercurial, many other developers haveīeen granted write access to the source tree, fostering a more
GNU OCTAVE REVIEW FREE
Part due because Octave is free software." The ideas of free software (the freedom to share and modify, etc.)ĭoes not necessarily imply a collaborative development process.īut surely there is some connection? I've rewritten this to read: "In Since Octave is free software, its development is quite open I've edited this slightly to say that you wrote the original man-db Program, and I'm not sure mine could even be considered the first used I was the original author of what is now the man-db package.īut there have been a number of other implementations of the man So that is the real reason that I started work on Octave. Students, so that they would have something to work with Here are some comments about specific passages.Īt any rate, jwe first wrote Octave for his chemical engineering
0 kommentar(er)
