Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 18th Oct 2012 18:15 UTC
Permalink for comment 539653
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2007-02-17
GNU Octave is a MATLAB work-alike, it uses the same language & syntax etc. Most MATLAB scripts should work fine without modification.
"Should" being the operative word.
Which is what these programs are to their proprietary equivalents. The argument works both ways.
Well it depends whether they are worth the cost over the free alternatives. Does mean these programs are evil or shouldn't be purchased. "
We agree almost completely, up to a point. The only thing I would add is that if there is a quality FOSS program work-alike and an expensive proprietary alternative, and they are say 99% compatible but to work in one program or the other one has just to change the odd thing here and there, then my observation would be that say 99.9999% of the parties with an interest would be best served if the consensus was that the FOSS program was the gold standard, and the proprietary program was almost but not quite compatible.
In other words, it should be seen as a case of: "most GNU Octave scripts should work fine in MATLAB. "Should" being the operative word. Sometimes MATLAB is incompatible and it will let you down.".
Looking at it that way around is in the best interests of the vast majority of people ... everybody except MATLAB is best served by such a consensus. I hope you are objective enough to see this point. Too bad (for you) if you aren't.
Edited 2012-10-23 02:45 UTC