Octave C++ performance benchmarks?

[Kyusik Chung]

> However, if you are developing just a
> stand-alone application, I daresay there are more suitable libraries
> to use.
Exactly the point I was making.  I was initially interested in Octave  
bc of the wealth of functionality it has built in.  But, as we are all  
agreeing, its really focused on the Octave interpreter and not on  
inclusion into other C++ code.

> Yeah, not even you...Complaining that something missing is cheap.

I wasnt complaining, I was just stating a fact.  As Im sure you know,  
documentation and support are important considerations when choosing a  
package for production use.  I was simply outlining the reasoning for  
why Octave was not the best choice for our kind of use.

Also, its a little unrealistic to expect someone who has never used  
Octave before and who is surveying the landscape of math libs to  
contribute a lot of documentation.  I do think it would be reasonable,  
after helping and supporting many people in using the Octave C++  
libraries, to expect that some of those users would put some work into  
developing the documentation.


Kyusik

On Jul 24, 2008, at 1:24 PM, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 8:43 PM, Kyusik Chung <kyusik at gmail.com>  
> wrote:
>> According to the GPL FAQ:
>>
>>> A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web
>>> site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?
>>> The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without
>>> ever distributing it to others. What this company is doing is a
>>> special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to
>>> release the modified sources.
>>
>>
>> So what I am talking about is allowed under GPL.  If it werent, a lot
>> of websites out there wouldnt exist (or GPL'd libraries wouldnt be as
>> widely used).  If you disagree with the GPL, you could go with a
>> different licensing scheme.  If you want to stick with GPL, why be
>> hostile to people who want to use it according to the rules of GPL?
>>
>> In any case, Ive decided that Octave is not a good option for anyone
>> who is trying to use matrix/vector/lin algebra functionality in their
>> own C++ code (my original question).  As you pointed out, Octave is
>> for end users to use in the interpreted environment, and using the
>> libraries in your own code is just a bonus, if it works.
>
> Not quite. The liboctave library contains a lot of useful features to
> work with matrices and arrays. Certainly it's more convenient to use
> than Matlab's mex interface. However, if you are developing just a
> stand-alone application, I daresay there are more suitable libraries
> to use.
>
>> Plus, no one
>> has contributed the time to put together any documentation, nor is
>> that on any priority list.
>>
>
> Yeah, not even you. It's not hard to guess why this is a low priority
> thing for Octave developers - they study how the sources work, and
> then they know, and they no longer need such docs. I agree that it
> would help people developing packages or linking the libs, but there
> is a lot of other work.
> Complaining that something missing is cheap. We all know that the
> documentation is missing and would be useful. If you want it done,
> consider making a donation for that purpose. I'm sure someone would
> pick up the offer.
>
>
>> Boost, FLENS, and O2scl seem like good options for using that kind of
>> functionality.
>>
>
> Certainly. FLENS and uBlas are both good, though a little different in
> their purpose.
> But much of their functionality is just syntactic sugar (which I never
> appreciated much).
> I'm not familiar with o2scl. Unlike Octave libs, they were designed
> from ground up to be building blocks. Octave libs were meant to
> provide key algorithms and data management for Octave, which is what
> they do, and do it well
>
>
>> Kyusik
>>
>> On Jul 24, 2008, at 6:46 AM, John W. Eaton wrote:
>>
>>> On 22-Jul-2008, Kyusik Chung wrote:
>>>
>>> | Sorry for not being more precise.  Its not code we are going to
>>> | distribute.  Its back end code that will crunch some data we will
>>> put
>>> | on our website, which will be free for consumers to use.  I was
>>> using
>>> | the term "application" in a very broad sense.  Does that qualify?
>>>
>>> Qualify in what sense?  It does not make the software free for  
>>> others
>>> to use.  We are sharing Octave with you but you are not sharing your
>>> work with our community.  Why should we go out of our way to help  
>>> you?
>>>
>>> jwe
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Help-octave mailing list
>> Help-octave at octave.org
>> https://www.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> RNDr. Jaroslav Hajek
> computing expert
> Aeronautical Research and Test Institute (VZLU)
> Prague, Czech Republic
> url: www.highegg.matfyz.cz