>Here’s a partial list of features in Chebfun not in ApproxFun: > 1) Automatic edge detection and domain splitting
The automatic splitting capability of chebfun is definitely really cool, but it always seemed to me to be a bit more then one would need for most use cases. That is, if I am defining some function like f = Fun(g::Function,[-1,1]) where g is composed of things like absolute values and step functions I might need to do something sophisticated to figure out how to break up the domain, but if I instead pass something like f = Fun(g::PiecewiseFunction,[-1,1]) which has some g that has been annotated by the user in some obvious way (or semiautomatically, given some basic rules for composing PiecewiseFunction types under standard operations) I might have a much easier time. In practice, when setting up problems in the first place one is often paying attention to where discontinuities are anyway, so providing such a mechanism might even be a natural way to help someone set up their problem. Maybe this kind of thing is incompatible with ApproxFun (sorry, I didn't look in detail yet). But at any rate, super cool work! If there are any plans to start a gallery of examples ala chebfun I would be happy to contribute some from population dynamics. On Friday, September 12, 2014 1:43:27 AM UTC+2, Sheehan Olver wrote: > > > Chebfun is a lot more full featured, and ApproxFun is _very_ rough > around the edges. ApproxFun will probably end up a very different animal > than chebfun: right now the goal is to tackle PDEs on a broader class of > domains, something I think is beyond the scope of Chebfun due to issues > with Matlab's speed, memory management, etc. > > Here’s a partial list of features in Chebfun not in ApproxFun: > > 1) Automatic edge detection and domain splitting > 2) Support for delta functions > 3) Built-in time stepping (pde15s) > 4) Eigenvalue problems > 5) Automatic nonlinear ODE solver > 6) Operator exponential > 7) Smarter constructor for determining convergence > 8) Automatic differentiation > > I have no concrete plans at the moment of adding these features, though > eigenvalue problems and operator exponentials will likely find their way in > at some point. > > > Sheehan > > > On 12 Sep 2014, at 12:14 am, Steven G. Johnson <steve...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > This is great! > > > > At this point, what are the major differences in functionality between > ApproxFun and Chebfun? > >
