[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Octave vs Scilab
From: |
Judd Storrs |
Subject: |
Re: Octave vs Scilab |
Date: |
Thu, 7 Oct 2010 09:44:41 -0400 |
2010/10/6 Tatsuro MATSUOKA <address@hidden>:
> BTW I have octave-3.0.x both on MinGW and MSVC, the
> speed of octave MInGW version and MSVC version are not
> so different
Hmm. I wonder what else could cause the difference in performance on
windows and not on linux? Unless I misunderstood the datapoints seem
to be:
linux: scilab, octave equivalent
windows: scilab faster than octave
I found this page that describes the build process for the official
scilab windows binaries. It indicates they use Visual Studio C++ Pro,
Intel C++ 11 and Intel Fortran 11:
http://wiki.scilab.org/Visual_Studio_C%2B%2B_2008_Pro_%26_Intel_Fortran_11
Can the intel compilers really be that much better than microsoft's compiler?
--judd
- Re: Equalis Octave group, (continued)
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2010/10/08
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Dave Barnes, 2010/10/10
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Judd Storrs, 2010/10/11
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Dave Barnes, 2010/10/11
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2010/10/11
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Judd Storrs, 2010/10/11
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Dave Barnes, 2010/10/12
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Judd Storrs, 2010/10/12
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Dave Barnes, 2010/10/13
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Robert T. Short, 2010/10/08
- Re: Octave vs Scilab,
Judd Storrs <=
Re: Octave vs Scilab, Jaroslav Hajek, 2010/10/07
Re: Octave vs Scilab, Carmine Napolitano, 2010/10/13