Octave review

[Daniel J Sebald]

Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso wrote:
> 2009/2/7 John W. Eaton <jwe at octave.org>:
> 
>>Here are some comments about specific passages.
>>
>> At any rate, jwe first wrote Octave for his chemical engineering
>> students, so that they would have something to work with
>>
>>I've never had students.
> 
> 
> Oops, fixed.
> 
> 
>>so that is the real reason that I started work on Octave.
> 
> 
> Edited that.
> 
> 
>>I was the original author of what is now the man-db package.
>>But there have been a number of other implementations of the man
>>program, and I'm not sure mine could even be considered the first used
>>on early GNU/Linux systems.
> 
> 
> I've edited this slightly to say that you wrote the original man-db
> package, and I'll leave it at that.
> 
> 
>> Since Octave is free software, its development is quite open
>>
>>The ideas of free software (the freedom to share and modify, etc.)
>>does not necessarily imply a collaborative development process.
> 
> 
> But surely there is some connection? I've rewritten this to read: "In
> part due because Octave is free software..."
> 
> 
>> It used to be that jwe had the final authority on what code could be
>> committed to the sources, but since he moved the code from an
>> antiquated CVS repository to Mercurial, many other developers have
>> been granted write access to the source tree, fostering a more
>> bazaar-like collaboration mode
>>
>>I think this confuses the details of the particular version control
>>system with the development model.
> 
> 
> Okay, I have reworded this to suggest that the change of write access
> to the source tree happening with the move from CVS to Mercurial is
> simply a coincidence.

I think John meant that Octave's development model has been a bazaar-like collaboration for quite a while.


>> The syntax is identical to Matlab's syntax
>>
>>It's close, but there are some differences.
> 
> 
> What are we missing as far as syntax goes? I thought it was only
> specific functions that are missing, or features like object
> orientation.
> 
> I've reworded this to say that the syntax is near identical to Matlab's.

More accurately, Octave's language is a superset of Matlab's.  One can transfer Matlab scripts to run under Octave fairly easily, but not necessarily the other way around.  Octave is more flexible in allowing various forms of syntax and Octave's packages won't run under Matlab.


>> Simulink, which I've never personally used but I understand is an
>> important reason for the foothold Matlab has as a de-facto standard
>> in the numeric community
>>
>>I think simulink is a fairly specialized tool and I don't get the
>>sense that it is somehow responsible for Matlab's success.
> 
> 
> It seems that in discussions of Matlab's success, Simulink frequently
> comes up as a touted Matlab feature. I've rewritten this to make it
> seem like a less important reason.

True, it's a touted Matlab feature, but as I see it Simulink provides no extra functionality to the core of Matlab and adds little to what makes the language as useful as it is.  Octave/Matlab's benefit is that of any computer language: efficient processing and analysis.  Simulink adds little to that.


One other thing about the review is that it tends to vilify Mathworks near the end.  I'm not lobbying for changing the review, but defending the company perhaps.  Sure they use the business model of making the software available to schools at reduced cost to increase the user base, but that's pretty standard.  I don't see any questionable use of business practice (a bit pricey, perhaps).  As far as I can tell, it's a fairly good team of people working with educators and researchers in the business sector.  Octave will not supplant Matlab any time soon**, and I'm not sure that was ever John's intent.  Rather, Octave puts a resource at the disposal of users who can't afford otherwise, i.e., one doesn't have to buy their way into a scientific research community.

Dan

** An enjoyable read:  http://www.nealstephenson.com/command/