[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Octave review
From: |
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso |
Subject: |
Re: Octave review |
Date: |
Sat, 7 Feb 2009 09:58:14 -0600 |
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.
- Octave review, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2009/02/06
- Message not available
- Re: Octave review,
Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso <=
- Re: Octave review, Daniel J Sebald, 2009/02/07
- 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