Re: [OctDev] Question on performance, coding style and competitive software

[Jaroslav Hajek]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Alois Schlögl
<address@hidden> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> John W. Eaton wrote:
>> On 22-Apr-2009, Alois Schlögl wrote:
>>
>> | (The programm slowed down on Matlab from 13.0 to 66.15 s, though).
>>
>> If you care about this, then I guess you should complain to the
>> MathWorks about the performance of their product...
>>
>> | BTW, what are the arguments in favor of using octave-only coding style ?
>>
>> Some of us like it better.  Using endfor, endif, etc. is easier to
>> read.
>
>
> The indentation is the most important to make readable code, the use of
> endfor, endif etc. is hardly decisive.
>

This is only true with small blocks. If the body of the block gets
large enough that it doesn't fit on a page (and yes, I sometimes still
work in a 25-lines terminal) or it fits, but you can't easily visually
connect the end of the block with its beginning, the information gain
of "end of if block" vs. "end of block" is a big plus.
Whether such big blocks occur frequently enough is debatable, but they do occur.

>
>>
>> | Yes, the question is closely related to the previous one. Of course, if
>> | the toolbox is compatible to matlab, there is no problem for the matlab
>> | users. Unfortunately, most toolboxes (all in Octave and
>> | octave-forge/main and most of octave-forge/extra) are using the
>> | octave-only coding style.
>> |
>> | This seems to suggest that a fork is neccessary in order to make the
>> | toolboxes applicable for matlab users. Is there an alternative ?
>>
>> Some of us don't see enhancing Matlab as a goal of the Octave or
>> Octave Forge projects.  The goal for us is to make Octave better by
>> writing code for Octave, not Matlab.  Making useful things available
>> in Octave packages should provide an incentive to use Octave.
>>
>> jwe
>
>
> I agree that making useful things available for Octave is an incentive
> to use Octave; however, i do not see how writing octave-only code is
> decisive for this aim.
>
> On the other hand, writing mat-compatible functions can win users for
> the tools and toolboxes (even if they still prefer the proprietary
> engine). This could also bring in some additional testers for the
> toolboxes. It might be also a way to raise the interest of some current
> mat-users and developers. I think it would be a win for (the idea of)
> Octave.
>

Users running a package on Matlab IMHO bring little to Octave
development, as Octave is not involved anywhere. The benefit goes to
the package, but it is up to the author to consider whether it
outweighs the burden.


-- 
RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
computing expert & GNU Octave developer
Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
Prague, Czech Republic
url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz