Re: Octave-3.6.1 for Windows (VS2008/VS2010) available

[Philip Nienhuis]

Michael Goffioul wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 6:36 PM, PhilipNienhuis<address@hidden>  wrote:

<snip>

> Well, it loads instantaneous (while the MinGW version takes ~25 secs).
This may be due to the fact that no package is loaded by default at
startup. Although 25s is quite large...

On MinGW, loading all packages takes a mere second of CPU time (3 sec 
waiting time). So that is not the issue.
I suspect the delay for Octave itself is due to initialization of the 
MinGW environment behind the scenes.


> > 4. Do you have plans to include the java spreadsheet .jar files with your
> > > binary package? AFAICS all of them are covered under Apache or GPL license.
> Maybe. It depends the additional size to the installer. If it adds
> megs to the installer, I think I'll prefer to keep it separate,
> especially if it's not mandatory for the io package normal usage.

Around 18 MB.

For 10 % of the io functions no jars are needed. As to spreadsheet I/O 
(the remaining 90 %):
- For .xls/.xlsx I/O the Windows package would be sufficient. If no 
Excel is installed however, some Java jars become required.
- For .ods I/O some jars are needed.
If the user has OpenOffice or LibreOffice installed, again no jars are 
needed - they're contained in OOo/LO itself. But: the UNO-Java/Octave 
communication is still delicate if not unstable.

FYI, an overview of disk size of Java jars for the respective interfaces 
+ my personal impression as developer is here:

.xls:
POI: 9 MB  (probably the best Java-based .xsl/.xlsx option, not superfast)
JXL: 1 MB  (tricky for writing, fairly fast reading, can read Excel95)
OXS: 2 MB  (fastest for reading, absolutely unusable for writing)
UNO: -     (tricky, but can read ANY format OOo itself can read)

.ods:
OTK: 5 MB  (a bit of a dinosaur, works good, sometimes keeps files locked)
JOD: 3 MB  (fast, not very versatile, but it Just Works)
UNO: -  see above. UNO is fairly inefficient for small files, for large 
ones (> 10 MB) it becomes indispensable.

> > 6. Gnuplot pictures are different (incomplete; e.g., no text) compared to
> > fltk ones.
>
> Not sure I understand this one. Do you have an example?

See attached pics.

Philip

o361-fltk.png
Description: PNG image

o361-gnpt.png
Description: PNG image