[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: A question on Matlab compatibility
From: |
Peter Jensen |
Subject: |
Re: A question on Matlab compatibility |
Date: |
Sun, 17 Sep 2006 17:37:14 +0100 |
Gents,
In relation to the discussion below,
could somebody clarify the procedure
for reporting differences between mat*ab
and octave-forge.
I found out that the scaling for pwelch in
octave-forge is different from matlab,
but I was not sure if I should report this
as a bug.
If the scaling of pwelch was changed in
octave-forge it may break some peoples
code. On the other hand the function is
not mat*ab compatible right now.
Peter
On Sun, 2006-09-17 at 11:19 -0400, John W. Eaton wrote:
> On 16-Sep-2006, Ron Crummett wrote:
>
> | Maybe I'm missing something here, but I have always seen Octave-forge as
> | an open-source attempt to include the functional extendability that the
> | various Matlab toolboxes provides.
>
> That is part of it, but the other more important part is that Octave
> Forge provides a central location for people to contribute code, and
> for people to work on it in a collaborative way. It, like Octave, is
> a community project, and it is freely available. So if you don't like
> what you see, you can help to improve it. But just complaining will
> usually not cause the people who are doing the work to make
> improvements just to meet your needs. In fact, it often has the
> opposite effect, of just annoying the people who have been doing the
> hard work.
>
> | I have always been under the impression that to be included in
> | Octave-forge, some requirements must be satisfied, in order to prevent
> | anybody from writing some simple script and submitting it, only to have
> | the rest of us in fits because we don't know how to use it.
>
> I think pretty much anything with a free software license is accepted
> in the Octave Forge collection. We tend to place more requirements on
> code that is distributed as a part of Octave itself (Texinfo doc
> strings, code formatting conventions, etc.).
>
> | In the cases I have mentioned, I don't think it would be hard at all to
> | provide more compatibility between Octave and Matlab.
>
> Then please submit some patches to make it happen.
>
> | For example,
> | Matlab has the series function that performs a multiplication of two
> | cascaded systems. Octave has a function by the same name and with the
> | same functionality, but when it is called displays a warning encouraging
> | its users to use sysmult instead, a function whose name lends itself
> | well to its performance.
>
> You seem to be under the impression that these choices were made just
> to make things difficult for you and other users. I doubt that is the
> case. Most of the control functions for Octave were written before
> the MathWorks released the current interface for the Matlab control
> toolbox. So it is not surprising that there are some differences. It
> is not as if we made the interface incompatible just for the sake of
> being incompatible. Again, if you would like to help improve things,
> then please submit some patches. I don't think there is currently an
> active maintainer of the control functions in Octave, so it might help
> to have some people working on it.
>
> | Heck, I'd do both of these if I knew I wasn't stepping
> | on anyone's toes.
>
> There is little need to worry about that around here. It's not like
> we have so many people working on Octave that we are constantly
> bumping into each other.
>
> | Perhaps a break-off of Octave-forge is needed, some sort of general code
> | repository similar to the Matlab Central exchange. Octave-forge could
> | be preserved with the goal of Matlab toolbox compatibility (again,
> | that's how I've always seen it) and Octave-central (call it what you
> | will) could be a third-party code submission where people submit their
> | task-specific code.
>
> We (mostly Soren and David) have been working on moving toward a
> package system for Octave to help encourage more contributions. With
> the package system, it will be easier to install just the parts of
> the Octave Forge collection that you need rather than installing all
> of it. It will also be easier for people to package and distribute
> their own collections of functions. I'm hopeful that this will result
> in more contributions.
>
> jwe
> _______________________________________________
> Help-octave mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://www.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave
- A question on Matlab compatibility, Ron Crummett, 2006/09/15
- Re: A question on Matlab compatibility, A. Scottedward Hodel, 2006/09/15
- Re: A question on Matlab compatibility, Ron Crummett, 2006/09/16
- Re: A question on Matlab compatibility, Joe Koski, 2006/09/16
- Re: A question on Matlab compatibility, Ron Crummett, 2006/09/17
- Re: A question on Matlab compatibility, David Bateman, 2006/09/17
- Re: A question on Matlab compatibility, John W. Eaton, 2006/09/17
- Re: A question on Matlab compatibility, Ron Crummett, 2006/09/17
- Re: A question on Matlab compatibility, David Bateman, 2006/09/17
- Re: A question on Matlab compatibility,
Peter Jensen <=
- Re: A question on Matlab compatibility, David Bateman, 2006/09/17
- Re: A question on Matlab compatibility, Paul Kienzle, 2006/09/17
- Re: A question on Matlab compatibility, Paul Kienzle, 2006/09/17
- Re: A question on Matlab compatibility, John W. Eaton, 2006/09/17