Alois Schlögl 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. > > > >> | 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. > > When I tried using a function name of a function in matlab that was in a toolbox as well and I didn't have a license for this toolbox matlab's license manager prevented me from using that function even if all the code in it was mine.. Perhaps matlab's license manager has improved but if it hasn't your idea of getting matlab users to use matlab compatible octave-forge toolboxes might be dead in the water.. Frankly I always considered this behavior of matlab's a bug as I see no reason I should avoid an arbitrary and growing list of function names
D. D. -- David Bateman dbate...@dbateman.org 35 rue Gambetta +33 1 46 04 02 18 (Home) 92100 Boulogne-Billancourt FRANCE +33 6 72 01 06 33 (Mob) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Crystal Reports - New Free Runtime and 30 Day Trial Check out the new simplified licensign option that enables unlimited royalty-free distribution of the report engine for externally facing server and web deployment. http://p.sf.net/sfu/businessobjects _______________________________________________ Octave-dev mailing list Octave-dev@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/octave-dev
