octave vs. scilab

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

octave vs. scilab

Nils Naumann
Hi,

does anyone tried both octave and scilab and can answer some questions:

Which are the main differences?
Which are the advantages and disadvantages of both programs?
Why do you prefer octave (or scilab)?

thanks in advance

Nils

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nils Naumann                                     Fido: 2:316/[hidden email]
Mining University Leoben                     Internet: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octave vs. scilab

Kaj Wiik-4


On Thu, 16 Mar 1995, Nils Naumann wrote:

> Hi,
>
> does anyone tried both octave and scilab and can answer some questions:

Disclaimer: These are humble opinions of a radio astronomer with very
small amount of experiance on programming.

> Which are the advantages and disadvantages of both programs?

Advantages:

- Scilab
        Lots and lots of functions including very good ones for signal
        processing

        Graphics and GUI is better (but not good still :))

- Octave
        Mostly written in C++ (and so has future..)
        Active and responsive mailing lists
        Aim is matlab compatibility (so that matlab is subset..)
        Reads and writes matlab binaries (I am not sure if scilab can or not?)


Disadvantages:

Scilab:
        Mostly written in F77
        Interpreter takes all available CPU time
        No dynamic allocation of memory
        Some of the manual pages are in French (well, shame on me not to
        understand... :))

Octave:
        Needs gcc 2.6.3 to compile (this is Linux-related problem which
        will go away sooner or later when 2.6.3 is released for Linux)

        Graphics is thorugh a little antique gnuplot (which is good
        enough for most things however..)

Kaj
[hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octave vs. scilab

U-E59264-Osman Buyukisik-2
In reply to this post by Nils Naumann
I had octave first, and recently got scilab2.0 (there is a later
version 2.1). Scilab seems to be more complete but quite a bit bigger,
and you need +70MB and X11R6 if you want to built it from the
sources. Octave does not have a lot of the bells and whistles of
scilab. But I think scilab may not have the image libs that octave
has. Scilab has pulldown menus etc, and octave is command driven. Both
have hypertext help. Both can do dynamic linking on some systems. Both
are supplied with binaries if you need them. Scilab seems to have the
linear/nonlinear optimization/programming libs that are missing from
octave. Scilab also has a very impressive demo menu (one simulates a
car/truck parking in a rectangular space). Both seem to have similar
capabilities in the ODE/Equation solution arena.

Osman

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: octave vs. scilab

Jonas Svanberg
In reply to this post by Nils Naumann


> Octave:
> Needs gcc 2.6.3 to compile (this is Linux-related problem which
> will go away sooner or later when 2.6.3 is released for Linux)

gcc 2.6.3 do compile for Linux. However there might not be binary
distribution out there yet...

- cheers
                Jonas ([hidden email])