Re: Question on performance, coding style and competitive software

[dbateman]

Alois Schlögl-2 wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> David Bateman wrote:
>  
>> 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
> 
> 
> This would be certainly an issue. I agree that such behavior is not ok.
> Personally, I've not observed this as an issue, biosig, NaN- and
> TSA-toolbox are working well with Matlab. Free toolboxes could be useful
> to raise this issue and make users aware of this problem.
> 

But don't the NaN and TSA toolboxes shadow Matlab core functions? What I was
talking about were matlab toolbox functions. Try naming a function "vitdec"
which is the name of a function from the communications toolbox of matlab
and see if you can get matlab without the communications toolbox installed
to run it.


I've used oct2mat (thanks to you for pointing this out, and thanks to
Thomas for the fix) and compiled the converted functions. This first
version is available here:
http://hci.tugraz.at/~schloegl/matlab/freetb4octmat-0.01.zip

An open question is, whether the discussion about this approach (and
questions of mat-users) can happen here at the octave mailing lists, or
whether this should happen somewhere else. The communication with the
users is important in order to solve the open issues. And the users
should expect a nicer reply than "don't bother us with your
matlab-related problems". On the other hand, some of you might get
annoyed by matlab-related problems.

Are there any suggestions how to address this issue? Perhaps another
mailing list e.g. address@hidden ?


If they are toolboxes hosted on octave-forge the list should be
address@hidden

Cheers
David

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/Question-on-performance%2C-coding-style-and-competitive-software-tp23159718p23220317.html
Sent from the Octave - Maintainers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.