# Difference between revisions of "User talk:Kri"

Jump to navigation
Jump to search

(→repmat different syntax: Where should it be mentioned in that case?) |
Carandraug (talk | contribs) (→repmat different syntax: reply) |
||

Line 12: | Line 12: | ||

:::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) | :::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 [http://hg.savannah.gnu.org/hgweb/octave/rev/ed25bed43409 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) |

## Revision as of 01:41, 22 September 2014

## repmat different syntax

Regarding your recent changes, the best place to make note of that is on the Octave bug tracker. Also, you did not specify in what case the syntax is different, so I guess, maybe you're referring to this?

- Yes, that seems to be what I meant, thank you for linking to the bug report. When I wrote that the syntax is different, I meant that the syntax differed for
*some*case. I don't think the syntax should differ from that in Matlab in*any*case. But why did you remove the note about making sure Octave is compatible with Matlab and vice versa, don't you think that is worth mentioning? —Kri (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2014 (PDT)

- I don't think it's worth mentioning on the list of project as it is not a project, just like we do not make reference of the Octave coding standards there. It wouldn't be the right place for it. And even if it was, I disagree with that opinion and considering the amount of Octave features missing from Matlab, I would say that so do most of Octave developers. One should be careful to not implement something that could clash with exiting Matlab functionality but its' perfectly fine to implement things that are missing in Matlab. --carandraug (talk) 07:51, 21 September 2014 (PDT)

- Okay, that makes sense. In this case however, Octave and Matlab can both repeat arrays in more than two dimensions, but require different syntaxes for doing so. So when Octave eventually will support the syntax used in Matlab, it will support two different syntaxes for doing the same thing, which is not necessarily a good thing. It would probably have been better if the syntax used in Matlab had been implemented from the beginning. Do you agree with me?

- In that case maybe we should say something about that to the Octave developers. Where do you think it could be mentioned in that case?

- I don't understand the issue. There was missing functionality in
`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,`[sz1, sz2, ... szn]`

, also exists in Matlab.

- I don't understand the issue. There was missing functionality in

- But there are plenty of cases where Octave implements something before Matlab. A perfect example is bug #42487 about Matlab having finally implemented
`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`flip`

. Octave implemented`flipdim`

in 2004. Matlab implemented`flip`

in 2014. This function does exactly the same thing, it only has a different name.

- But there are plenty of cases where Octave implements something before Matlab. A perfect example is bug #42487 about Matlab having finally implemented

- 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.

- --carandraug (talk) 02:41, 22 September 2014 (PDT)