What should an Octave GUI be like?

[Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso]

I'm glancing right now at Pedro Lucas's new QtOctave release, which
seems to be fixing a few issues, although it personally still doesn't
please me entirely.

My biggest question right now, design-wise, is this: keeping in mind
that QtOctave is mostly meant for easing transition from being a
Matlab user to being an Octave user (or so it seems to me), should we
attempt to mimic a Matlab interface as much as possible? Since Matlab
is a Windows application that happens to be available for MacOS X and
Unix, some of its design decisions seem a little out of place for an X
app, and correct me if I'm wrong here, since I haven't used Matlab on
MacOS X in over a year nor on Windows in over 3,

I am specifically thinking of the choice of having one large workspace
where several non-overlapping windows coexist (with mostly useless
information, if you ask me). Now, I know that one of the greatest
criticisms against the Gimp, for example, is that instead of having
this large workspace, it opens many small and mostly independent
windows. I am told that the Gimp's design clashes with Windows, but X
window managers like Beryl, kwin, or metacity can make the Gimp feel
more at home with features like multiple desktops and such.

I am rambling, Sorry. Let me try to get to the point.

Should QtOctave follow the same design principles like a single
workspace with non-overlapping windows and mostly useless information
in them, or open many small independent subwindows for each new
functionality requested?

Going back to the goal: since QtOctave is meant for transitioning for
Matlab (I personally don't see myself using QtOctave very much in the
near future; I like consoles and Emacs), perhaps we should be aiming
to make an app that pleases Windows users even if it looks out of
place in X.

I have other questions regarding QtOctave's design, but before I pose
them, I would like to hear your thoughts.

Thanks,
- Jordi G. H.