[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
## Re: Statistics on octave - Comparison with R

**From**: |
Dirk Eddelbuettel |

**Subject**: |
Re: Statistics on octave - Comparison with R |

**Date**: |
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 12:17:44 -0600 |

**User-agent**: |
Mutt/1.3.23i |

Pierre-Andre,
On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 06:58:52PM +0000, Pierre-Andre Cornillon wrote:
>* For instance I have done the test (see in proceeding DSC 2001, J.W. Eaton)*
>* tic (); x=[1:100000];total=0; for i=1:100000*
>* total=total+x(i);endfor;toc()*
>* (or the same with cpu_time)*
>* *
>* and (under R)*
>* system.time{x_1:100000;total_0;for(i in 1:100000) total_total+x[i]}*
>* *
>* R was two times faster.*
I have a review in Journal of Applied Econometrics [ a copy is / was on
octave's web pages; if not I can email it to you ] which looks at Octave
from an Econometrician's point of view. It also has a little speed
comparison with R and Matlab using a small Monte Carlo example.
>* May be some advanced user have something to answer (I know that R*
>* use static allocation of memory but is it an disadvantage for a*
>* basic user ?)*
AFAIK it doesn't any more since R 1.2.0.
In general, it depends. I used to do more work in Octave, I currently tend
to do more work in R, but it is somewhat driven by what the questions are
you are trying to investigate. I find R and Octave to be more complementary
than substitutes.
Regards, Dirk
--
Better to have an approximate answer to the right question
than a precise answer to the wrong question. -- John Tukey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.
Octave's home on the web: http://www.octave.org
How to fund new projects: http://www.octave.org/funding.html
Subscription information: http://www.octave.org/archive.html
-------------------------------------------------------------