I have recently found a Matlab program (TraitLab) that I would like to try and use, but I do not have a Matlab license. Given that I thought GNU Octave and Matlab are mostly compatible, I tried to run it in octave, but the GUI way to run the program depends on loading a .fig file (now I know that I can use load to get the struct content of that file, but that does not make it a figure I can pass around to various GUI functions), and the headless way to run it reports many parse errors about
nested functions not implemented in this context
Is there an obvious way to get a function written for Matlab that shows these two symptoms to run under Octave?
I have downloaded TraitLab and it is obvious to me that it is a program that will need heavy modification for you to run on octave, which you probably don't have time (or possibly expert knowledge) to implement.
In this case you really only have two other options.
1) Write to the developers and ask them if they could re-implement their code in such a way to make it Octave compatible. I wouldn't hold my breath since it's an academic library, but it's always worth pointing out that there is demand for Octave compatible code. Also given this is old code, it's still worth contacting the stats lab in oxford, since they may have moved to a different codebase that might also suit your needs (e.g. I know that a lot of stats people in oxford have made the switch to julia).
2) In the meantime, if you really want to run this but you don't have matlab, find a matlab installation (e.g. from a friend, or at your university) and create a standalone-version using Matlab's "Application Compiler".
OR
Consider buying matlab. It has a reputation for being prohibitively expensive, partly because University-wide licences do cost an arm and a leg. But for personal use (especially if you are a student?), with the right licence and only the necessary toolkits, it's actually not as prohibitively expensive as you might think.
i'm a computer systems engineering undergraduate student, i just want to know what advantages MATLAB has over SCILAB and vice versa other than that SCILAB is freeware.
i mean from a computer engineer point of view.
thanks
I can't get into the nitty-gritty details, as I haven't used SCILAB extensively.
But from a bird's eye view, MATLAB is a very polished software, with decades of development behind it. And a price to match. It has a huge array of specialized packages, good support, a reasonably well designed UI, and it's generally user-friendly enough for non-computer engineers to work with. It's also very common in the industry, so it's not a bad thing to have on your resume.
But if you don't have very complex needs (which I suspect, given the use I made of MATLAB during my undergrad years) and you don't need the robustness and polish of a professional package, SCILAB will probably meet your needs.
And since it's based on the MATLAB language, what you'll learn can be transferred later on if your needs change, or you find yourself working in an environment where MATLAB is the default.
Scilab is to MATLAB as OpenOffice is to MS Office. That is to say, it's a not-quite-a-clone, and it's not as polished. You do get most of the functionality of MATLAB, and the price is much more agreeable.
That said, if you want a free/open pretend MATLAB, I personally prefer Octave, since the syntax is closer to MATLAB's.
If you aren't bothered about MATLAB compatibility, then check out the statistics language/environment R, which is delightful.
Matlab is the de-facto industrial standard, is ready now and here, and has a big firm behind to push it.
Scilab has been for long time the open source alternative, but honestly it never appealed me. I think that or they never belived enough on the project, or that you need too much money to make a valid product of this kind.
And it is a real pity, since we desperately need a good open source alternative, because being open source is the only way to be very efficient on different platform: actually matlab is very good at prototyping small-medium programs, but since it is closed source, it's very difficult to scale it up, to supercomputers for example, requiring often a complete rewrite of the code.
Sage might be the third way, it has a lot of potential, and I would bet on it. Check it. It doesn't reinvent the wheel like Scilab did, but take existing software and merge it in a new program. It is based on python which gained a lot of momentum in the computing world, since it has shown to be both easy enough to quick prototype, and versatile enough to run on exotic platforma like supercomputers or GPGPU.
# MatlabDoug
It is feasible in small-medium environment, but on very big task the flexibility of open source is invaluable.
Starting from low-level tool like open-mpi that allows you to finely tune your applications, through higher-level framework like PETSc that lift a lot of work from your shoulders, to java and python implementations that let you concentrate on the algorithms forgetting about many of the headaches of the lower level languages.
But the real proof is that an astonishing majority of the top500 supercompunters prefers open source alternatives.
I've been asked to run a workshop and coding dojo soon for people to try out Scala and try to build something with it. The attendees are all going to be new to Scala, and could come from any of a number of languages (I'm presuming they can code in at least one mainstream language - I'm including syntax comparisons with Java, C#, Python and Ruby).
Part of the appeal of Scala is that it's practical - you can use it as a drop-in "power Java" (Java with less syntactical clutter, closures, immutability, FP, traits, singleton objects, nifty XML handling, type inference etc.) that still runs on the JVM (and on the .NET CLR supposedly) and doesn't require you to change build tools, server infrastructure, libraries, IDEs and so on. Most of the katas I've seen have been fun but not 'real world' - mathematical challenges like Project Euler and so on. These don't seem appropriate as we're trying to explore the use of it as a practical, real world language that people could consider using for both hacking and work, and because people aren't necessarily going to be too familiar with either the deeper parts of the Scala syntax or necessarily of the concepts behind functional programming.
So, has anyone come across any more practical, everyday katas rather than arithmetical 'problem solving' ones? Katas, that is, that can test whether the language, libraries and tools can satisfy the use cases of the actual day-to-day programming most people have to do rather than testing out. (Not that the impractical ones aren't fun, but just not appropriate for the kind of thing I've been asked to run.)
If I can't find good examples, I'm thinking that it might be useful to try and build something like a library catalogue - the event is for programmers who primarily work on building infrastructure for universities (and in education and culture - museums, galleries, schools, libraries and so on). It's a bit boring though, but it's the sort of thing that the attendees work on in their day-to-day existence. Any suggestions?
There is a creative commons licensed introductory training course with hands-on exercises here:
http://github.com/javaBin/scala-training-slides
http://github.com/javaBin/scala-training-code
The slides are in Open Office format. If you don't have this installed, you can upload them to SlideShare, which will convert them for online viewing.
Most of the programming examples in my blog are, effectively, coding dojo exercises. Particularly the matrices series, but also the puzzles and 99 beers. Now, don't disregard the matrices series as being "mathematical", because the problems I concern myself in it are related to the construction of classes in Scala, not to doing fancy algorithms. In fact, I pretty much skip over the mathematical algorithms themselves.
Now, 99 Scala Problems and pretty much everything from Project Euler are nice exercises for the functional part of Scala, but I understand that not to be your emphasis. I do recommend retronym's answer. Rosetta Code, not being functionally oriented, might have more general examples. There are many with Scala examples, of course, though you may wish to consider other tasks as well, for ideas.
There's lot of cool things to learn about Scala, but one has to be careful at beginner level. For instance, I would not speak of dependency injection (self types and the cake pattern) or of type classes (the pattern that simulates such with implicits).
Do look as well at the material on the Scala Lang site, particularly the Scala by Example document.
EDIT
I have now overseen several Scala dojos, so here's a bit of stuff I've learned from then:
Problems: they have to be fun, not-quite-easy, not-that-hard, and that has to be everyone's opinion.
We use the Dojo Puzzles site, which is in Portuguese so it won't be of use for most people here. If there's a similar site in English, I'd love to hear about it.
The way it works is you ask for a random problem, look it over and discuss to see if you'll pick it up or not, and then indicate by saying you'll use it, you'll not use it, or maybe you'll use it but you'd like to see another one. This vote gets registered and you can see how many people picked up a problem, which helps deciding whether to pick it up or not in first place.
Scala knowledge: it turns out it's not that important to introduce key concepts of Scala language beforehand, particularly if some of the participants have basic knowledge.
In my experience, setting up the testing environment with a trivial "pass" test and explaining how people should write the tests is often enough to get people started. If you feel someone is struggling to write something, give a quick explanation and get on with it.
Teaching Scala: if you do set out to teach Scala, keep lessons short and follow up with a dojo. In this case, keep a set of dojo problems that are adequate to the lesson, and, depending on how many lessons you want in one day, short.
It helps imposing artificial constraints on how one must solve a problem. Some examples of constraints I have put in practice are no classes and single-expression methods (that is, no multiple statements or val/var declarations). The point of these constraints is making it impossible for people to solve the problem in the way they are used to, which gets them to explore the language in search of alternatives.
I have the final results of three dojos done at my current job in this repository.
At the moment we are using the Randori Kata format, but without fixed time or break, and with retrospective at the end of the dojo, not at the beginning of the next. This, however, is just were we are currently at -- we have experimented many variations, and we are still evolving.
Perhaps you could have a look at the Ruby Quiz material for inspiration.
Take a look at Scala by example from Martin Odersky (creator of scala)
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 10 years ago.
This is marked as a subjective question, I hope I won't get too many down votes though.
LV seems to offer a nice graphic alternative to traditional text based programming. As I understand, it's not a just-virtualization/data acquisition programming language. Nonetheless, it seems to have that paradigm pegged to its creator's name.
My question comes up because it doesn't seem to be widely used for multi-purpose applications. I'm not a LV-expert of any kind, I'm more like a learner. I'm still getting used to LV.
Labview is fantastic if you have National Instruments hardware, and want to do something like acquire, plot and log the data.
When you start interfacing to custom devices the wiring between modules gets complicated having to do all the string manipulation work for input and output to a device.
At my place of work, we found that we got annoyed with having to make massive, complicated VI's to interface to devices and started writing them in .NET and interfacing them to Labview.
In the end we ended up scrapping Labview all together and using the NI Measurement Studio for Visual Studio to give us all the lovely looking NI controls (waveform plot, tank, gauges, switches etc) with the flexibility of C#.
In summary, even with a couple of 24" screens, sometimes the wiring for Labview code can get too complex and becomes impossible to comment, debug, and make extensible for any future changes. I suggest taking a look at Measurement Studio for Visual Studio and using your favourite .NET language with the pretty NI controls.
My two experiences with "graphic alternative[s] to traditional text based programming" have been dreadful. I find such languages to be slow to use, hard to edit, and inexpressive. Debugging them is a nightmare. And they offer no real advantages.
To be sure, it has been quite a long time since I looked at one, but the opinions of others I've asked about them have been only luke warm, so I have never taken the time to look again. Reasons to look again are welcome and will be taken on board...
Labview can be used to author large, complex software projects. Labview is unquestionably much more fun to use than a syntax based language. I have programmed mathematically dense, dynamic simulations using labview. Newer versions of Labview include alot of exciting features, especially for utilizing multiple processors. I like Labview very much. But I don't recommend it to anyone.
Unfortunately, it's an absolute nightmare for anything other than simple acquisition and display. It may one day be sufficiently developed to be considered as a viable alternative to text based languages. However, the developers at NI have consistently opted to ignore the three fundamental problems that plague labview.
1) It is unstable and riddled with bugs. There are thousands of bugs that have been posted to the labview support forums that are yet to be fixed. Some of these are quite serious, such as memory leaks, or mathematical errors in basic functions.
2) The documentation is atrocious. More often than not, when you look for help with a labview function in the local help file you'll find a sentence that merely restates the name of the item you are trying to find some detail on. e.g. A user looks up the help file on the texture filter mode setting and the only thing written in the help file is "Texture Filter Mode- selects the mode used for texture filtering." Gee, thanks. That clears things right up, doesn't it? The problem goes much deeper in that; quite often, when you ask a technical representative from national instruments to provide critical details about labview functionality or the specific behavior of mathematical functions, they simply don't know how the functions in their own library work. This may sound like an exaggeration, but trust me, it's not.
3) While it's not impossible to keep graphical code clean and well documented, Labview is designed to make these tasks both difficult and inefficient. In order to keep your code from becoming a tangled, confusing mess, you must routinely (every few operations) employ structures like clusters, and sub-vis and giant type defined controls (which can stretch over multiple screens in a large project). These structures eat memory and destroy performance by forcing labview to make multiple copies of data in memory and perform gratuitous operations- all for the sake of keeping the graphical diagram from looking like rainbow colored spaghetti with no comments or text anywhere in sight. Programming in labview is like playing pictionary with the devil. Imagine your giant software project written as a wall sized flowchart with no words on it at all. Now imagine that all the lines cross each other a thousand times so that tracing the data flow is completely impossible. You have just envisioned the most natural and most efficient way to program in labview.
Labview is cool. Labview is getting better with each new release. If National Instruments keeps improving it, it will be great one day as a general programming language. Right now, it's an extremely bad choice as a software development platform for large or logically complex projects.
I **have been writing in LabVIEW for almost 20 years now. I develop automated test systems. I have developed, RF, Vison, high speed digital and many different flavors of mixed signal test systems. I was a "C" programmer before I switched to LabVIEW.
It's true that you can build some programs quickly in LabVIEW, but just like any other language it takes a lot of training to learn to build a large application that is clean easy to maintain with reusable code. In 20 years I have never had a LabVIEW bug stop me from finishing a project.
Back in the day, NIWEEK would have a software shootout every year. LabVIEW and LabWINDOWS (NI's version of "C") programmers would both be given the same problem and have a race to see which group finished first. Each and every year all the LabVIEW programmers were done way before the 1st LabWINDOWs person finished. I have challenged many of my dedicated text based programming friends to shootouts and they all admit they don't stand a chance, even if I let them define the software problem.
So, I feel LabVIEW is a great programming tool. It's definitely the way to go if you’re interfacing with any type of NI hardware. It's not the answer for everything but I’m sure there are many people not using it just because they don’t consider LabVIEW a “real programming language”. After all, we just wire a bunch of blocks together right? I do find it funny how many text based programmers snub there noses at it as they are so proud of the mess of text code they have created that only they can understand. A good programmer in any language should write code that others can easily read. Writing overly complex code that is impossible to follow does not make the programmer a genius. It means the programmer is a “compliator”(someone who can take a simple problem and complicate it). I believe in the KISS principle (KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID).
Anyway, there’s my two cents worth!**
I thought LabVIEW was a dream for FPGA programming. Independent executable blocks just... work. In general, I use LabVIEW for various tasks interfacing with my DAQ and FPGA hardware, but that's about it. It seems (again to me) that this is LabVIEW's strong point and the reason it was built, but outside that arena it feels "cumbersome." As far as getting things done, it's like any other language with a learning curve - once you figure it out it's not too bad for getting work done. I've seen several people give up before that thinking the learning curve was permanent or something.
Picking up a 30" monitor made a huge difference.
I know one thing that people dislike is the version control integration.
Edit: LabVIEW/hardware is hella expensive for "just for fun" use. I dropped $10K on their hardware (student prices) and got the software for free from school for making toys around the house.
Our company is using LabVIEW for the last 10 years for measuring, monitoring and reporting of our subject (trains).
Recently we have started using LabVIEW as GUI for databases with lots of data, the powers of LabVIEW with the recent new features (Classes, XControls) allows use to create these kinds of GUIs for a fraction of development costs at other platforms. While we don't need external programmers at consultancy rate.
Ton
I first started using Labview in a college physics lab. Initially, I thought it was slow and cumbersome when compared to other text-based languages. It was too difficult to create complex logic and code became sloppy real fast (wires everywhere).
Then, a few years later, I learned about using sub-vi's and bundles. What a difference! At this point, I was using labview for very high level functions. I was taking raw input from a camera, using all kinds of image filters and processing to ultimately parse out the lines in a road so that a vehicle could drive itself down this road with no driver - it was for the DARPA URBAN CHALLENGE. I was also generating maps from text waypoint data, making high-level parsing functions, and a slew of other applications that had nothing to do with processing data from input devices. It was really a lot of fun. and FAST.
After leaving college, I am now back to using text-based languages. I've been using: PHP, Javascript, VBA, C#, VBscript, VB.net, Matlab, Epson RC+, Codeigniter, various API's, and I'm sure some others. I often get very frustrated in the amount of syntax I have to memorize in order to program with any significant speed. I find it annoying to have to switch schools of thought based on the language I am using... when all programming languages essentially do the same thing! I need a second monitor just to have the help up at all times so i can find the syntax for the same functions in different languages. I miss Labview very much, it's too bad it's so expensive otherwise I would use it for everything.
Graphical based programming I think has a huge potential. By not being constrained by syntax, you can focus on logic instead of code. Labview itself may still be in its infancy in terms of support and debugging, but I believe conceptually it beats out the competition. It's simple a more intuitive way to program.
We use LabVIEW for running our end of line test equipment and it is ideal for data acquisition and control. Typically measuring 15 to 80 differential voltages and controlling environmental chambers, mass flow controllers and various serial devices LabVIEW is more than capable.
Interfacing with custom devices can be simplified greatly by using the NI instrument driver wizard to create reusable VI's, interfacing with custom dll's if needed. On a number of projects we have created such drivers for custom hardware and once created there are reusable in future projects with no modification.
Using event driven structures user interfaces are responsive and we regularly use LabVIEW applications to interface with a database.
Whatever programming environment you choose it's the process of designing the application that matters most. I agree that you can create some really horrible and unreadable block diagrams in LabVIEW but then you can also create unreadable code in Visual studio. With just a little thought and planning a LabVIEW block diagram can be made to fit on a single 24" monitor with plenty of space to add comments.
I would use LabVIEW over Visual Studio for most projects.
But people do use LabView for purposes other than data acquisition and virtualization. Of course LabVIEW is mainly used in labs and production environments because it is (or was) one of the main NI's customer target.
However you can do a lots of various things with LabVIEW, like programming a robot that would perform a lot of image analysis, and then tweet the results. Have a look at videos from NI Week 2009 on you-tube, and you'll see how powerful this tool is. For instance, there is possibility to write code and deploy it to ARM MCUs (see this Dev Monkey article from 2009.08.10).
And finally check this LabVIEW DIY group
I have been using LabVIEW for about two years for developing automation. If given due care and proper design we sure can develop maintainable and really good looking application in LabVIEW.I think this is the same for all the other languages out there. I have seen equally bad code in LabVIEW primarily from people who use it only to develop quick and dirty working automation. IMHO Graphical programming is a lot easier to code and understand if rightly done. But that said I feel text based programming 'feels' more powerful!
LabVIEW is primarily marketed for industrial automation, has inherent support for lot of NI hardware and you can get the third party hardwares working with it pretty quickly. I think that is the reason you see it only in automation field. Moreover it is pretty costly and you are locked down with NI as you do cannot even open your code if you do not buy the software from them!
I've been thinking about this question for decades (yes, since 1989...)
Like all programming languages, LabVIEW is a high-level tool used to manipulate the flow of electrons. Unless you are a purist and refuse to use anything other than a breadboard and wires; transistors, integrated circuits and programming languages are probably a good thing if you wish to build something of any consequence.
But like all high-level tools, just wielding one does not make you a professional craftsman. Back in the day of soldering irons, op-amps and UARTs it required a large amount of careful study before you could create a system that actually functioned. The modern realm of text-based languages is so overly dominated by syntax that the programmer must get it just right before it will compile and run. In order to write code that works, the programmer must increase their skill level to create systems much larger than "Hello World".
LabVIEW is not dominated by syntax, but by Data Flow. Back in the day, reaching for your flow charting template and developing the diagram of a well-balanced information system was the art and beauty part of the job. Only after you had the reviewed flowchart in hand would you even consider slogging through the drudgery of punching out the code. (yes... punch cards)
LabVIEW is a development system that allows the programmer to use flow charting tools to diagram the complete information system and press "run"..... LabVIEW "punches out the code" and compiles it for you. No need to fight through the syntax of text language A or language B.
With such a powerful tool, novices can build large, working programs rapidly -- implying some level of professional craftsmanship since it runs at all. However, if the system does not perform elegantly, or the source code diagram is a mess, it is not the fault of LabVIEW.
People often point to "LabVIEW is only good for developing large data acquisition systems." Perhaps those people should consider the professionalism of the scientists and engineers that are working in data acquisition. If they know enough to get the actual wires right for the sensors and transducers, it may be a good bet that they are expert at developing LabVIEW wiring diagrams as well.
I do use LabView at home, as it is part of Lego Mindstorms, which my son loves. And I really like the way to compose systems like this.
However, in my work (embedded systems), it is generally to restrictive. But also here, I'm trying to move up in abstraction:
- control and state behavior: Model based design (i.e. Rhapsody)
- data algorithms etc. Simulink
Sometimes a graphical model can require more clicks than a piece of code. But this also includes the work a good programmer need to do in design & documentation; not just the code typing. The graphical notation takes many hassles away and is generally much faster if the tool is powerful enough for the complexity at hand. So I expect these kinds of tools will gain more popularity in the next years as they mature and people get familiar with them.
I have used LabView for some 10 years. It's brilliant for Scientific prorgamming ie like Matlab or Simulink but 10 times better. If you are having problems then you are doing something wrong. It takes time to learn like any language. As for using .Net instead - are these people even on the same planet? Why would you go to the trouble of writing eveything from scratch when you can say pull up an FFT etc and use alread written code. .NET is fine for simple programs but not so good for Scientific processing. yes you can do it but not without oodles of add-ons for graphics etc. Prorgamming in G is far easier than text based for Scientific problems. You can of course program in c if you are interfacing and use the dll. Now there are things that I would not use LabView for - speech recognition for example may be a bit messy at present. More to the point though, why do people like programming in outdated text form when there is an easy alternative. It is as if people want to make things complicated so as to justify their job in some way. Simplify Simplify!
Somebody said that LabView is only sued in the Automation field. Simply not write at all. It has applications in Digital Signal Processing,Control Systems,Communications, Web Based,Mathematics,Image Processing and so on. It started as a data aquisition method and they invented the name Virtual Instrumentation but it has gone far beyond that now. It is a Scientific programming language with a second to none graphical interface. It is way beyond Simulink and if you like Matlab then it has a type of Matlab scripting built in for those that like such ways of programming. It is evolving all the time. The one thing I found difficult was writing code for the Compact Rio - tricky but far easier than the alternative. It's expensive but you get a quality product. I personally have not found any bugs in ordinary programming. It is an engineers language but anybody could use it to program.