> Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 13:06:51 +0200 > From: Jerzy Karczmarczuk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Michael Vanier comments my defense of Matlab: > > >>I used objects, and even a lot of functional > >>constructs. I don't see any reason to call it a creeping horror. > >>It is quite homogeneous and simple, and is decently interfaced. > >> > >> > >> > > > >It's incredibly inconsistent. To cite just one example, the syntax is > >geared towards the notion that "everything is a two-dimensional matrices of > >double-precision floating point numbers". If you want to have a > >three-dimensional array, you can do that, but the syntax is not going to be > >nearly as elegant, because matlab's array syntax doesn't scale at all. > > > Come on... > Matlab has cells and the full object-oriented layer nowadays. There > are short ints, strings, complex numbers, etc. The extensibility is > good. The overall consistency is reasonable. > > Syntax for 3D arrays? > Give me one single language where this is natural and immediate. > We are 2D readers/writers, our way of presenting information is > 2D within a text editor, and similar problems hit everywhere. I used > 3D matrices for the image synthesis, for colour image processing, > for simulations of physical systems. It wasn't worse, and even better > than in many other languages.
Python: # 2-d array: print a[0][0] # 3-d array: print a[0][0][0] This also applies to most languages, including C. If you like matlab, go right ahead and use it. The same goes for Visual Basic. I could care less what programming languages you use. But if you think matlab is an elegant language, we will have to agree to disagree. And that is the last word I will say on this subject, since this is a Haskell mailing list. Mike _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
