GNU Octave 5.1.0

Re:GNU Octave 5.1.0 by rct42 on Saturday March 02, 2019 @03:34AM (#19288289)

I find that I'm more productive prototyping algorithms in Matlab than in Python. In fact, I tend to write it first in Matlab, port it to Python, and finally port it to C (to run on an embedded device)!

As for Octave, I've used it a couple times in the past but found the environment underwhelming (especially so when creating plots). I also tend to run into various compatibility problems when running scripts developed in Matlab.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GNU Octave 5.1.0 by grwilliams on Saturday March 02, 2019 @06:35AM (#19288786)

I've used Octave and the Python stack and I can confirm that it is much easier to focus on the problem at hand using Octave. One can focus on the math and algorithms and not the language.

It is the same for me with R vs. the Python equivalents.

So your strategy of designing in Matlab and porting later (if necessary) makes a lot of sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GNU Octave 5.1.0 by 4thaccount on Saturday March 02, 2019 @08:37AM (#19289197)

Ever try MicroPython for embedding?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GNU Octave 5.1.0 by rct42 on Saturday March 02, 2019 @01:55PM (#19290541)

I haven't used MicroPython and suspect it wouldn't suit my use case. I often have to design things that run on battery power (sometimes a CR2025) and so the firmware needs to be quite lean. Also most of the time is typically spent interfacing to hardware and peripherals so using something other than C wouldn't make sense.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:GNU Octave 5.1.0 by 4thaccount on Saturday March 02, 2019 @06:55PM (#19291883)

Gotcha. At that level I guess your only options are Assembly, C, or FORTH.

[ Parent | on HN ]