True, Matlab has its limitations, but those are partly unavoidable. If you want to build a large object oriented program, you often use something more heavyweight anyway.
But that heavyweight language (or framework) is usually not so quick to build something in anymore, because your heavyweight structures are just in the way in the earlier phase.
I tried Python and Numpy, and the vectors, matrices and all that felt just tacked on and the syntax was much more complex compared to Matlab. Maybe it's changed since. Also in Scilab the type conversions and function overhead are a nuisance. Every time you edit a script or function, you have to specifically reload it before running it. Makes rapid prototyping about three fold as time consuming. Would it be hard to make the software notice I actually edited something?
Many people actually want to solve problems, and they just end up creating a program as a side product. They do not set out to study libraries and do not want to actually write any code that is not directly related to the problem they are solving.
It's why Matlab is able to charge the price. It sometimes saves time. Some of the users are not primarily software developers but are quite educated and intelligent and their salary is not small.
So you're implying anyone who is a software developer is not educated or intelligent, nor has a large salary. I think a lot of people would beg to differ.
In reality, matlab only exists because of inertia. It's the same reason why microsoft windows is still around. There's no substance behind it.
He wasn't implying that. You've inverted his statement. Many economists and engineers I know care less about how they code and care more about getting a solution to the model at hand--this seems to be the poster's point. The implication is exactly what he exposited, whereas the logical inverse is what you've mistakenly deduced as the implication.
Perhaps it comes off that way to you but I'd be willing to bet it doesn't to the great majority of readers, because it simply isn't saying what you say it's saying.
OK, but he's worded it wrong, it gives the impression of a snarkiness. Maybe he's saying that matlab users can't program well but are still intelligent/well paid (but that doesn't really make sense since numpy is equally easy and an intelligent/educated person wouldn't find programming hard). Anyway, maybe I misread it and you're right.
edit: great, I was getting points before, and then you come along with your italics.
Comments
True, Matlab has its limitations, but those are partly unavoidable. If you want to build a large object oriented program, you often use something more heavyweight anyway. But that heavyweight language (or framework) is usually not so quick to build something in anymore, because your heavyweight structures are just in the way in the earlier phase.
I tried Python and Numpy, and the vectors, matrices and all that felt just tacked on and the syntax was much more complex compared to Matlab. Maybe it's changed since. Also in Scilab the type conversions and function overhead are a nuisance. Every time you edit a script or function, you have to specifically reload it before running it. Makes rapid prototyping about three fold as time consuming. Would it be hard to make the software notice I actually edited something?
Many people actually want to solve problems, and they just end up creating a program as a side product. They do not set out to study libraries and do not want to actually write any code that is not directly related to the problem they are solving.
It's why Matlab is able to charge the price. It sometimes saves time. Some of the users are not primarily software developers but are quite educated and intelligent and their salary is not small.
So you're implying anyone who is a software developer is not educated or intelligent, nor has a large salary. I think a lot of people would beg to differ.
In reality, matlab only exists because of inertia. It's the same reason why microsoft windows is still around. There's no substance behind it.
He wasn't implying that. You've inverted his statement. Many economists and engineers I know care less about how they code and care more about getting a solution to the model at hand--this seems to be the poster's point. The implication is exactly what he exposited, whereas the logical inverse is what you've mistakenly deduced as the implication.
His last paragraph is not clearly worded then. It comes of as thinly veiled insult to software developers.
Perhaps it comes off that way to you but I'd be willing to bet it doesn't to the great majority of readers, because it simply isn't saying what you say it's saying.
OK, but he's worded it wrong, it gives the impression of a snarkiness. Maybe he's saying that matlab users can't program well but are still intelligent/well paid (but that doesn't really make sense since numpy is equally easy and an intelligent/educated person wouldn't find programming hard). Anyway, maybe I misread it and you're right.
edit: great, I was getting points before, and then you come along with your italics.
It's all about the illiquid karma ;). No worries.