[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fwd: Calling Octave from C++]

From: Michael Creel
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Calling Octave from C++]
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 14:37:36 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.6.2

Bon dia, Xavier, has some information on this, 
see in particular

I have tried this out, and it seems speedy enough to use to me, though my 
application was very small.


On Wednesday 30 June 2004 13:32, Xavier Amatriain wrote:
> Hi all,
> We are developing a C++ framework for Music and Audio Processing
> (
> Our users have continuously requested to add a feature of being able to
> call external Matlab functions from within the framework. We have been
> reluctant to do so. One of the main reasons is that ours is a Free
> Software environment and we do not feel like offering support for a
> non-Free tool. That is why I was thinking on offering support for Octave
> instead and promote the use of this great tool instead of Matlab.
> But by reading this mailing list archive I see that calling Octave from
> C++ is not very feasible. If I understand right there is no problem in
> calling standard functions already implemented in liboctave but it is
> not that easy with new .m files provided by the user.
> I read in a mail by John Eaton the following:
> " (...) if you are writing a dynamically linked function for
> Octave, you could also use feval to call Octave's .m file version of
> the function, but if you are writing a standalone program, that won't
> work (without also loading all of Octave's interpreter, which I would
> bet is more than you really want).  And in either case, if you use the
> interpreted function, it will probably be a lot slower than you want (...)"
> Before continuing our attempt on integrating Octave I would like to have
> a clarification on the previous comment. I understand that for
> standalone applications calling Octave functions it is necessary to load
> the whole Octave interpreter. I think that is the way things work also
> in Matlab. I understand that this makes things go much slower. But is
> that the only problem? Provided that in these cases we are only talking
> about rapid prototyping and efficiency is not a must, will this decrease
> in speed be reasonable? Does anyone know if it can be comparable to the
> speed in doing the same operation with Matlab?
> Thanks

Octave is freely available under the terms of the GNU GPL.

Octave's home on the web:
How to fund new projects:
Subscription information:

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]