*Regarding Matlab vs. Octave I have used both
for Finite Element computations and have found
that Octave often is faster than Matlab---not by a
great factor, but a few percent.
As far as I know plotting using Octave is done
via Gnuplot, while Matlab uses some internal,
proprietary plotting program.
*
Esben Byskov, Ph.D., Dr.Techn.
Professor Emeritus of Structural Analysis
Department of Civil Engineering
Aalborg University
Sohngaardsholmsvej 57
DK-9000 Aalborg
Denmark
Phone: +45 3963 7328
e-mail: eb at civil.aau.dk
Home address:
Solbakkevej 56A
DK-2820 Gentofte
Denmark
Przemek Klosowski wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima