No kidding. Especially for Windows users, just figuring out what version of Python is needed and getting it set up with all of the dependencies required by the application is daunting.

What Matlab brings to the table is a customer-centric focus... meaning an awareness that the customer probably has something to do this week besides screwing around with open source scientific computing packages and their inevitable dozens of scattered dependencies.

As for Octave, it's useful for absolute zero-budget applications at the very low end of the market, and for mass deployment of multiple instances at the high end, but it doesn't have much of a role in the middle. The "home use" licenses introduced by Matlab recently really dropped a bomb on Octave. You can get a ridiculous amount of nifty stuff for less than $500.

...eh. I mean Mathworks might not be thaaat diligent but "For personal use only. Not for government, academic, research, commercial, or other organizational use"

Like I mean what the hell does that leave for "personal use"?

I think it's more of a "Here, now you don't have to warez our stuff" kind of license.

Technically the intent was for self-directed personal education. But the real reason is to encourage people to learn Matlab, and not Numpy or R or something else, and to discourage people from messing around with Octave. It's a classic move for a company that's getting worried about their market share.

Given that most of the value of Matlab over Octave lies in its toolboxes -- which are now $45 each -- this strategy seems sound. A few packages still aren't available, such as the toolbox that does HDL code generation, but those aren't available in the FOSS world either.

Thank so for that pointer about Matlab home use. I had missed it. I have a license through my employer, but being able to goof with it at home could be worth it. $150 for Matlab and $45 for toolboxes.