On 04/18/2013 02:33 PM, Michel Talon wrote:
> Przemek Klosowski wrote:
>> If you're looking for compatibility with existing software or coursework
>> based on Matlab, you definitely should consider Octave which has
>> compatibility as a design goal
>
> In my limited experience, scilab is much better than octave. At least when i
> looked at octave it was a *very* poor clone of matlab.
I think that if one took a random sample of .m files, Octave would be
more successful in running them---but I haven't performed the experiment
so I can't say that with certainty. In my experience of using both
Matlab and Octave, Octave is quite a reasonable clone. When did your
negative experience happen and what deficiencies caused it?
One area where people who previously used Matlab consistently complain
about Octave is lack of graphical IDE, so Scilab wins some points there.
Octave is currently in final stages of deploying an IDE, so in the
future the scoring should be based on numerical performance and breadth
of libraries, where Octave is going strong.