Forums

Octave or Scilab

Started by Ro_ny June 22, 2013
Hello people,

For designing pulsed shaping and other filters on Windows 7 for Fixed-point
MCUs, which is better to download (the latest version of): Octave or
Scilab?

And both export to a file the coefficients normalized to the needed format
e.g. Qm.n?

PS: Octave is claimed to be much more compatible with Matlab.

Rony J.
	 

_____________________________		
Posted through www.DSPRelated.com
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 15:31:40 -0500, Ro_ny wrote:

> Hello people, > > For designing pulsed shaping and other filters on Windows 7 for > Fixed-point MCUs, which is better to download (the latest version of): > Octave or Scilab? > > And both export to a file the coefficients normalized to the needed > format e.g. Qm.n? > > PS: Octave is claimed to be much more compatible with Matlab.
Octave is, indeed, much more compatible with Matlab. If this is an issue it should weight your choices. I vastly prefer Scilab -- it's easier to use that Octave, and has some object-oriented-ish features that are nice. But it's not trying to be a Matlab clone. Either one will do what you want. They have the same basic functions that would let you design your filters, and they both have formatted print functions that will (with a bit of effort on your part) let you print your values to a file just about any way you want to. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com
On 22.06.2013 22:31, Ro_ny wrote:
> Hello people, > > For designing pulsed shaping and other filters on Windows 7 for Fixed-point > MCUs, which is better to download (the latest version of): Octave or > Scilab? > > And both export to a file the coefficients normalized to the needed format > e.g. Qm.n? > > PS: Octave is claimed to be much more compatible with Matlab. > > Rony J. > > > _____________________________ > Posted through www.DSPRelated.com >
It depends Octave is more compatible but the last time I checked the Windows version was very unstable. If you use Linux on the other hand Octave with some GUI like KOctave is alright though. I prefer Scilab, runs stable on Windows and Linux, comes with a fully functional IDE GUI and has a syntax that looks a little less messy than the big M. Greetz, Sebastian
Let’s go for Scilab. Can you show what to type there in order to have the
coefficients of a Gaussian FIR filter into a text file? (I’ll change the
constants afterwards)

Rony J.	 

_____________________________		
Posted through www.DSPRelated.com
"Ro_ny" <95309@dsprelated> writes:

> Let&acirc;&euro;&trade;s go for Scilab. Can you show what to type there in order
to have the
> coefficients of a Gaussian FIR filter into a text file? (I&acirc;&euro;&trade;ll
change the
> constants afterwards)
If you're going to make your career in communications and signal processing, Octave/Matlab is the standard tool. I believe a lot of control guys use SciLab but a lot also use Matlab. I'm biased towards Matlab/Octave since that's what I've used for umpteen years.. -- Randy Yates Digital Signal Labs http://www.digitalsignallabs.com
Tim Wescott <tim@seemywebsite.please> wrote:

(snip)

> Octave is, indeed, much more compatible with Matlab. If this is > an issue it should weight your choices.
I have recently found out how incompatible Matlab is with Octave. There are many Octave features not in Matlab, and I had to go back and fix many programs I wrote for Octave. The biggest one is that Octave will let you include function definitions with names other than the file name, such that they can be called from within the file. Not Matlab. I find it convenient to have my whole program, including any functions (such as for ODE solvers) in the same file. Smaller ones, such as Octave allows # comments, both " and ' for strings, and the printf function aren't hard to fix. -- glen
Guys, I&rsquo;m ready to see the simple implementation for the above filter
example in your favorite language, I could then compare.
	 

_____________________________		
Posted through www.DSPRelated.com
On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 22:51:24 +0200, Sebastian <seb_doht@lycos.com>
wrote:

>On 22.06.2013 22:31, Ro_ny wrote: >> Hello people, >> >> For designing pulsed shaping and other filters on Windows 7 for Fixed-point >> MCUs, which is better to download (the latest version of): Octave or >> Scilab? >> >> And both export to a file the coefficients normalized to the needed format >> e.g. Qm.n? >> >> PS: Octave is claimed to be much more compatible with Matlab. >> >> Rony J. >> >> >> _____________________________ >> Posted through www.DSPRelated.com >> > >It depends Octave is more compatible but the last time I checked the >Windows version was very unstable. If you use Linux on the other hand >Octave with some GUI like KOctave is alright though. >I prefer Scilab, runs stable on Windows and Linux, comes with a fully >functional IDE GUI and has a syntax that looks a little less messy than >the big M. > >Greetz, >Sebastian
I've been using Octave on Windows for a long time and have never had any stability issues. Octave and Matlab are not quite 100% compatible, but they're really close if you write your code to be portable between them. I have about a decade's worth of code that I'd written under Matlab, and all of it has run under Octave with little to no trouble at all. Octave does have some extensions, like what has been mentioned, that are not compatible with Matlab, but those are fairly easy to avoid. As Randy mentioned, if you want to work in DSP/Comm, your code will be much more portable/sharable/collaboratable in Octave/Matlab than in scilab. I've done a number of projects where code was shared across organizations and Matlab is pretty much the industrial standard. Being able to work in something compatible with that has its merits. That being said, Matlab and Octave both have and do continue to evolve, and compatibility/portability between them may be harder to manage in the future. Eric Jacobsen Anchor Hill Communications http://www.anchorhill.com
Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:

(snip, someone wrote)

>>It depends Octave is more compatible but the last time I checked the >>Windows version was very unstable. If you use Linux on the other hand >>Octave with some GUI like KOctave is alright though. >>I prefer Scilab, runs stable on Windows and Linux, comes with a fully >>functional IDE GUI and has a syntax that looks a little less messy than >>the big M.
(snip)
> I've been using Octave on Windows for a long time and have > never had any stability issues.
I didn't run it until recently, but I have had a fair number of crashes when trying to control-C a running program. I believe it is while doing graphics, so it might be a problem related to that.
> Octave and Matlab are not quite 100% compatible, but > they're really close if you write your code to be portable > between them.
> I have about a decade's worth of code that I'd written under Matlab, > and all of it has run under Octave with little to no trouble at all.
> Octave does have some extensions, like what has been mentioned, that > are not compatible with Matlab, but those are fairly easy to avoid.
Yes. But I started with Octave, and learned some of those things without knowing that Matlab didn't have them. Sometimes accidentally. (Like the # comments, which other unix programs use, worked, and so I didn't look to see that they were Octave only.) -- glen
Guys, I am ready to accept the opinion of each one of you, but only with
the above basic example, otherwise these are words in the air.

Rony J.
	 

_____________________________		
Posted through www.DSPRelated.com