Newsgroups: comp.lang.apl
Path: watmath!watserv2.uwaterloo.ca!torn!spool.mu.edu!uunet!haven.umd.edu!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!mentor!weg
From: weg@mace.cc.purdue.edu (Eythan Weg)
Subject: Re: Weaning  myself from Matlab: is APL a viable alternative for scientific programming and signal processing?
In-Reply-To: sam@csi.jpl.nasa.gov's message of Tue, 19 Jan 1993 01:24:51 GMT
Message-ID: <WEG.93Jan19140548@mace.cc.purdue.edu>
Sender: news@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (USENET News)
Organization: Purdue University
References: <IBE1109.93Jan17152519@etbsun1.draper.com>
	<1993Jan19.012451.9402@csi.jpl.nasa.gov>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1993 19:05:48 GMT
Lines: 49

In article <1993Jan19.012451.9402@csi.jpl.nasa.gov> sam@csi.jpl.nasa.gov (Sam Sirlin) writes:


   In article <IBE1109.93Jan17152519@etbsun1.draper.com>, ibe1109@draper.com (Ira Ekhaus) writes:

   ....[deleted stuff]...

   |> Now, I'd like to correspond with people about their experiences with various
   |> versions of APL. Not only the language, but the total environment
   |> of which APL 
   |> would be a part:
   |> 	Comparisons with Matlab (power of language, memory usage, speed),

   I'd say APL (J) is probably slower, and is missing lots of important
   functionality (linear algebra). But it's a much better language, and
   much easier to write programs in. One thing you haven't mentioned is
   character/string manipulation which I regard as non-existant in
   Matlab. So if I'm working on a number crunching application (say
   calculation of closed loop transfer functions for large mechanical
   systems), I use Matlab/Fortran for speed and compatibility (so other
   people can use the results). But if I'm doing something standalone,
   that I'd like to do fast, and isn't completely defined at the moment
   (say determination of centroiding errors on a ccd detector after going
   through a fiber optic bundle), I use J. I also use J to make programs
   that write parts of Fortran code, in support of an all Fortran optics
   analysis program (system identification). 

   My guess is the Matlab crowd (vendor or free) is more concerned with
   speed and will stay ahead there using dynamic linking to other
   languages. I suspect they will stay behind for a long time on language
   power and expressiveness though. I suppose these two areas are
   mutually exclusive to a large extent. Compilers hold out hope (I'm
   playing with one and have the idea of using a .m to .apl translator)
   but are either not available much or not very usable yet.

   |> 	ways to link up with C and Fortran ,

   It's possible in J (since C source is available), but I haven't
   tackled it yet. Other dialects of APL have it too, each using their
   own system. Can this be made simple? .mex files actually work pretty
   well considering that source isn't available.

Can someone try to build a linear algebra (for example) version of J?
It seems to be very simple had I known C.  The components are there,
free, as I am told by this group.  Is it not a matter of compilation
with few extra defintions for LinkJ?  So, where is your hacking
spirit?  Any volunteers?

Eythan
