Jump to navigation Jump to search

User talk:Kri

1,594 bytes added, 01:41, 22 September 2014
:::Or did Octave implement that function before it was implemented in Matlab? I haven't checked that. Because in that case it makes more sense that it is implemented the way it is. —[[User:Kri|Kri]] ([[User talk:Kri|talk]]) 09:05, 21 September 2014 (PDT)
:::: I don't understand the issue. There was missing functionality in {{codeline|repmat}} but that was not caused because there was something else preventing it being fixed. It's just that no one had noticed until now. You will notice that the alternative syntax, {{codeline|[sz1, sz2, ... szn]}}, also exists in Matlab.
:::: But there are plenty of cases where Octave implements something before Matlab. A perfect example is bug {{bug|42487}} about Matlab having finally implemented {{codeline|issymetric}}. Octave implemented it in 2002, while Matlab only implemented it in 2014. Matlab version was not compatible with Octave despite the fact that Octave kept it interface stable for 12 years . Fortunately, it does not always causes such problems. Another example is the function {{codeline|flip}}. Octave implemented {{codeline|flipdim}} in [ 2004]. Matlab implemented {{codeline|flip}} in 2014. This function does exactly the same thing, it only has a different name.
:::: Octave has plenty of extra syntax, functions, and function options that are still missing in Matlab. I don't see why Octave developers should be forced to stay behind and simply imitate Matlab design. There is already a lot of care taken by Octave developers so that Matlab code can continue to run on Octave, but that doesn't mean it should not implement new things which are useful additions to the language, just because Mathworks hasn't done so yet.
:::: --[[User:Carandraug|carandraug]] ([[User talk:Carandraug|talk]]) 02:41, 22 September 2014 (PDT)

Navigation menu