Re: [Scilab-users] Matlab vs Scilab perf

[Amanda Osvaldo]

Do you propose a reform in SciLAB community ? :-O 
-- Amanda Osvaldo
On Sat, 2017-03-04 at 13:24 +0100, Pierre Vuillemin wrote:
> Concerning my assertion that Python outshines Scilab & co in
>   many other areas,
> 
> 
>   being a general purpose language, I feel that Python has a
> broader range of application. For instance, for creating a
> web-app, Scilab would certainly not be my first choice, while
> Python is commonly used for that purpose. 
> 
>   
>   Python enables to write object-oriented code and has some
> features from functional programming that are quite nice.
> While
> Matlab and Octave have some "solid" OO features (at least,
> its
> enough for what I'm doing with it), Scilab is lacking with
> respect to this point. For functional programming, all other
> environment are far behind what Python has to offer. For
> instance I find that expressions as 
> 
>   
> 
> 
>   
> stripped_list = [line.strip() for line in line_list if line
> != ""]
> 
>   
> 
> are really elegant and readable. More generally,
>   manipulating lists in python is made really easy.
> 
>   I really enjoy lists in Scilab. They feel more coherent to me
> than
>   cells in Matlab, but I wish they had more python-like features.
> 
> 
> 
>   I feel that interfacing with other languages is easier with
> Python than with Scilab/Matlab/Octave.
>   Packages, modules and namespaces enable to create very clear
> structures.
> 
> Besides, I could not agree more with you concerning bad
>   syntaxes/redundancy. Having a coherent environment is
> important.
> 
> A step towards this goal may be to update and complete the code
> convention for Scilab in a similar fashion to Python PEP?
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> 
> 
> Pierre
> 
> 
> 
> Le 02/03/2017 à 23:23, Samuel Gougeon a
>   écrit :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Hello Ricardo,
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > 
> >   Le 02/03/2017 à 19:33, Ricardo Fabbri a écrit :
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > > Speaking from experience:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > It is worth mentioning that in many ways performance is
> > > not
> > > critical
> > > 
> > > 
> > > for a "lab" language like Scilab or Matlab. It is just an
> > > extremely
> > > 
> > > 
> > > simple language to test concepts and algorithms at a very
> > > small
> > > scale
> > > 
> > > 
> > > of granularity. The real crucial factor for Scilab or
> > > Matlab is
> > > the
> > > 
> > > 
> > > GUI for exploring data and developing algorithms
> > > interactively.
> > > Once
> > > 
> > > 
> > > you have a working solution, you'll fit it inside a
> > > bigger and
> > > more
> > > 
> > > 
> > > relevant
> > > 
> > > 
> > > system by porting promptly to a language like C++ for
> > > scalability and speed.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Just use Scilab for what its worth, don't obsess with
> > > speed,
> > > even
> > > 
> > > 
> > > though it is important.
> > > 
> > > 
> > >   
> > 
> >   
> > 
> >   I agree: Matlab, Scilab, Octave, IDL, GDL.. Yorick etc were
> > and
> >   are still first made for prototyping, not for speed. This is
> > why
> >   they were back to interpreted -- and so slower -- languages.
> >   
> > 
> >   But they should not have any handicapping snail instructions
> > for
> >   common frequently used ones like scf(). Loosing time gained
> > with
> >   an easy language avoiding to declare each object type and to
> >   compile and link the whole thing each time that we change a
> >   semicolon in the code... would be meaningless.
> >   
> > 
> >   
> > 
> >   So yes, i definitely agree: it is a matter or ergonomic for
> > GUIs
> >   but also and first for the language (regular namings,
> > rational
> >   order of arguments, etc) that make it easy to learn and use.
> > This
> >   is somewhat why i never really got inside python (and sciPy).
> > I
> >   felt its syntax not straightforward to learn, even for simple
> >   things. Same thing for R. And it's always the same feeling
> > when i
> >   try to compare results from these various languages --
> > including
> >   javascript --, for instance to extend Scilab or debug it,
> > seeing
> >   usages or conventions the most used elsewhere. Each time, it
> > is
> >   quite harder for me to find and understand the relevant
> > syntax
> >   with Python and R, while for instance i find javascript more
> >   intuitive.
> >   
> > 
> >   This is why i don't know much about Python. When Pierre
> > writes
> >   

[Scilab-users] Setting ticks_format

[Viktor Goryainov]

Hello!

Using the GUIbuilder package I created a graphic window for my 
application and added a pair of axes to it, like this:


handles.ax_screen= newaxes();
handles.ax_screen.margins = [ 0 0 0 0];
handles.ax_screen.auto_margins = 'on';
handles.ax_screen.ticks_format = ["%.3e","%.3e"];
handles.ax_screen.axes_bounds = [0.45,0.036,0.527451,0.791];

The help page states that "for example ticks_format="%.2e" will print 
ticks positions in using scientific notation with two decimals". But if 
I try to plot something, say,


X = -10:0.1:10;
plot(X, X.^5);

then the max value at the y axis will still read 10, not 1e5. So, 
what am I doing wrong?


Best regards,
Viktor
___
users mailing list
users@lists.scilab.org
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [Scilab-users] Matlab vs Scilab perf

[Pierre Vuillemin]

Concerning my assertion that Python outshines Scilab & co in many other 
areas,


 * being a general purpose language, I feel that Python has a broader
   range of application. For instance, for creating a web-app, Scilab
   would certainly not be my first choice, while Python is commonly
   used for that purpose.
 * Python enables to write object-oriented code and has some features
   from functional programming that are quite nice. While Matlab and
   Octave have some "solid" OO features (at least, its enough for what
   I'm doing with it), Scilab is lacking with respect to this point.
   For functional programming, all other environment are far behind
   what Python has to offer. For instance I find that expressions as

   stripped_list  =  [line.strip()  for  line  in  line_list  if  line  !=  
""]

   are really elegant and readable. More generally, manipulating lists
   in python is made really easy.
   I really enjoy lists in Scilab. They feel more coherent to me than
   cells in Matlab, but I wish they had more python-like features.

 * I feel that interfacing with other languages is easier with Python
   than with Scilab/Matlab/Octave.
 * Packages, modules and namespaces enable to create very clear structures.

Besides, I could not agree more with you concerning bad 
syntaxes/redundancy. Having a coherent environment is important.


A step towards this goal may be to update and complete the code 
convention for Scilab 
 
in a similar fashion to Python PEP 
?


Regards,

Pierre

Le 02/03/2017 à 23:23, Samuel Gougeon a écrit :

Hello Ricardo,

Le 02/03/2017 à 19:33, Ricardo Fabbri a écrit :

Speaking from experience:

It is worth mentioning that in many ways performance is not critical
for a "lab" language like Scilab or Matlab. It is just an extremely
simple language to test concepts and algorithms at a very small scale
of granularity. The real crucial factor for Scilab or Matlab is the
GUI for exploring data and developing algorithms interactively. Once
you have a working solution, you'll fit it inside a bigger and more
relevant
system by porting promptly to a language like C++ for scalability and 
speed.


Just use Scilab for what its worth, don't obsess with speed, even
though it is important.


I agree: Matlab, Scilab, Octave, IDL, GDL.. Yorick etc were and are 
still first made for prototyping, not for speed. This is why they were 
back to interpreted -- and so slower -- languages.
But they should not have any handicapping snail instructions for 
common frequently used ones like scf(). Loosing time gained with an 
easy language avoiding to declare each object type and to compile and 
link the whole thing each time that we change a semicolon in the 
code... would be meaningless.


So yes, i definitely agree: it is a matter or ergonomic for GUIs but 
also and first for the language (regular namings, rational order of 
arguments, etc) that make it easy to learn and use. This is somewhat 
why i never really got inside python (and sciPy). I felt its syntax 
not straightforward to learn, even for simple things. Same thing for 
R. And it's always the same feeling when i try to compare results from 
these various languages -- including javascript --, for instance to 
extend Scilab or debug it, seeing usages or conventions the most used 
elsewhere. Each time, it is quite harder for me to find and understand 
the relevant syntax with Python and R, while for instance i find 
javascript more intuitive.
This is why i don't know much about Python. When Pierre writes "Python 
outshines Scilab/Octave/Matlab in many other areas.", i would be 
interested to know more about that.


I agree with you, Pierre, about the whole environment. This is why, on 
this aspect, we could have a specific discussion about which modules 
-- with which components -- should rather compose "Scilab core", and 
which features could be distributed rather on ATOMS. I am not 
convinced that the current "Scilab core" composition is optimal. IMO, 
it is quite unbalanced by historical or particular influences.


As a conclusion, i think that introducing non-optimal syntaxes or 
duplicates etc in the language hurts much more than introducing a 
quite slow algorithm. Simply because the algorithm can be changed 
later without breaking anything, while introducing badly designed 
syntaxes or usages is much harder to manage afterwards, and impedes 
much more learning, using and maintaining the language.


Best regards
Samuel

___
users mailing list
users@lists.scilab.org
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users


___
users mailing list
users@lists.scilab.org
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users

[Scilab-users] Arguments of functions in Scilab

[Pierre Vuillemin]

Hi all,

I'm a bit confused by functions in Scilab and specifically the way they 
handle their arguments. For instance, in the following code


deff('g(x)','disp(x)');
g; // produces an error saying x is not defined
x = 1;
g; // call the function g and displays x...

leads to two questions,

 * the function g is called each time, shouldn't it be only displayed?
 * the second call 'works' and display x, even if the argument of the
   function has not been provided.  I've read the page concerning
   scoping of variables
    in
   Scilab, but shouldn't it says that the function was expecting 1
   argument?

This feels a bit unsafe to me, I'm wondering what is the reason behind 
this choice?


Best regards,

Pierre

___
users mailing list
users@lists.scilab.org
http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users