octave-maintainers
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: policy for release branch


From: Robert T. Short
Subject: Re: policy for release branch
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 09:58:48 -0700
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.21) Gecko/20090402 SeaMonkey/1.1.16

Daniel J Sebald wrote:
Robert T. Short wrote:
Well, now. Make a list of things octave does better. Send that to The Mathworks as a feature request. *If* they decide they care, MATLAB will do all of those things
and more by the next release.  They have resources that we don't.

In the macroscopic view, I see your point. Matlab covers much more ground than Octave. However, I often feel more proficient when working in Octave. A lot of Matlab's perceived advantage is due to a lot of features that sometimes seem of questionable benefit; and the fact that people are enamored with GUIs (GUIs have their place, yes).

For example, the default for Matlab is to not print the contents of an array if the array size is too large. I suppose viewing data is what the GUI based "variables window" is for. But one has to double click 3 or 4 times to get to a spread sheet-like view of the data desired--whew. In Octave, the data is displayed in a pager no matter the quantity requested, a pager which allows easy searching.

Users denounce gnuplot, but in my opinion Octave w/ gnuplot offers far more versatility as far as graphics output formats. Gnuplot plots have just as nice appearance compared to those from Matlab. Matlab plotting has its own quirks as far as layout, etc. Also, if one is running a lengthy simulation or whatnot, the Octave/gnuplot plots can be examine while the Octave is still running. That doesn't work so well in Matlab.


Well, as usual I have demonstrated my talent for getting under peoples skin! Folks, I am not putting octave down. In spite of the fact that I claim we can't compete, I am a diehard octave user. End of story. Just because we can't compete doesn't mean we don't have something serious to offer. We do. It is a great package. It works for me, and it works for the rest of you on this list. The MATLAB users are missing out in my opinion. I was originally just trying to make the point that if we have to balance the resources we have to achieve our goals, whatever they are.

As far as being more productive in linux/octave I have no argument. None at all. MATLAB, and in fact almost all programs that run native under Windows, spend an enormous time on fluff - stuff that doesn't really matter. I wonder if anybody really cares at all, but apparently it sells software. I also feel like I get a LOT more done using linux/octave than Windows/MATLAB. While this wasn't originally the point I was trying to make, I think it is important to understand that we do not, not, not, compete with MATLAB. What we do here is build something that works for us. We (and pardon me for the we, since my contribution has been pretty minor) provide a tool for a certain class of sophisticated user. Not for some greater community, but for us. Perhaps that means we have a small set of things that we do better than MATLAB, but better only in our estimation. But, after all, that is all that counts. If the greater community finds value in what we provide, excellent, but I think most of us are here because we want octave to help us do our job.

As far as octave with gnuplot, I really liked the old gplot interface. I do like the MATLAB compatibility, but I thought gset/gplot, etc. was an awesome plot interface. Not perfect, lots of warts, but *I* loved it. I don't care about all the fancy plot features MATLAB offers. I need plots that look nice, and if I need to add annotations, I simply dump it in "fig" format and fire up xfig. I just wrote a chapter in a recently published book and by golly the figures looked almighty professional!

I also agree with the somewhat disparaging remark about GUIs. Yes, GUIs are important. They have radically transformed software from the software of my youth, but for crying out loud not EVERYTHING needs to be GUId. I absolutely despise the "integrated development environment" that has become so popular (and yet support the development of one since so many people love them).


  EVERY OTHER
PERSON in that initial group has stayed with MATLAB because they don't have to build from source, they can buy toolboxes that are uniformly reliable, they
don't have to worry about crashes, etc., etc.

Matlab hangs on occassion. Actually, it is probably a Windows issue, but hey.

Octave became very robust about five years ago. John always seemed to put crash bugs at top priority when they were reported, and I think he gradually did some code restructuring and improvement.

Yes, but the point is that most people aren't willing to put up with the apparent complexity of linux/octave. You are. I am. I can't even begin to understand why people use Windows on purpose, but they do. Maybe it is the fluff factor - maybe people really like little paper clips that supposedly help. I would prefer to see those resources applied to making solid software, but people seem to want fluff.

Hmm.  I seem to have gone into a rant here.  Bob has no opinions!

My contributions took months, but were really minor.  I did hold the
release up for a week or two right at the very end (actually, I REQUESTED
that we hold up for a week or two), but it was for a couple of quick but
very important items - important, given that everything else was in place.

No biggy in the grand scheme of things.

Dan



This is taking me away from my argument with Jaroslav. Plus I have other things to do. Like rebuild the transmission on my old car and drink some beer.

Cheers!

Bob
--
Robert T. Short
PhaseLocked Systems


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]