[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Octave's and Matlab's limitations

From: Sergei Steshenko
Subject: Re: Octave's and Matlab's limitations
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 10:16:30 -0800 (PST)

----- Original Message -----
> From: c. <address@hidden>
> To: Francesco Potortì <address@hidden>
> Cc: Sergei Steshenko <address@hidden>; "address@hidden" <address@hidden>; 
> Jake <address@hidden>
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Octave's and Matlab's limitations
> On 22 Nov 2012, at 10:49, Francesco Potortì wrote:
>>>  Though I agree with you that typically more than one language is
>>>  necessary, there is _nothing_ Matlab/Octave can do and other language
>>>  can't with the same ease or even easier and more elegantly and less
>>>  bug-prone.
>>  I think that the winning feature of Octave is the index notation and the
>>  ease to access submatrices with a readable and intuitive syntax.  That
>>  is, what is known as the Matlab index notation.  Are there any other
>>  languages that allow such indexing power and clarity?
> I'd say Fortran 2003, but I think all of Jordi's objections (plus MANY 
> more) would apply 
> to that language as well, furthermore most compilers are lagging behind in 
> implementation of 
> the full standard.
> These languages are specifically designed to facilitate handling arrays of 
> numbers,
> if that's want you want they are both amazingly powerful and convenient.
> c.

And I should add that "late" Fortran version are even object-oriented (if one 
wishes to use the feature) and syntax is greatly improved compared to Fortran 
IV (which I used for some time being much younger).

Seeing "late" Fortran code I almost undersand it not even learning the language 
- it is pretty readable by itself.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]