[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Octave vs Scilab
|
From: |
Judd Storrs |
|
Subject: |
Re: Octave vs Scilab |
|
Date: |
Wed, 6 Oct 2010 19:11:09 -0400 |
On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 6:29 PM, Fotios Kasolis <address@hidden> wrote:
> What makes loops slower in one interpreter compared to another?
Since the difference seems to be observed on Windows, I'll posit
that the build method probably is very influential. Do you happen to
know how SciLab is compiled? Possibly they use Visual Studio or the
Intel compilers instead of MinGW.
--judd
- Octave vs Scilab, Fotios Kasolis, 2010/10/06
- Re: Octave vs Scilab, Dmitri A. Sergatskov, 2010/10/06
- Octave vs Scilab, John W. Eaton, 2010/10/06
- Re: Octave vs Scilab, Dmitri A. Sergatskov, 2010/10/06
- Octave vs Scilab, John W. Eaton, 2010/10/06
- Re: Octave vs Scilab, Fotios Kasolis, 2010/10/06
- Re: Octave vs Scilab, John W. Eaton, 2010/10/06
- Re: Octave vs Scilab, Fotios Kasolis, 2010/10/06
- Re: Octave vs Scilab,
Judd Storrs <=
- Re: Octave vs Scilab, Tatsuro MATSUOKA, 2010/10/06
- Equalis Octave group, Dave Barnes, 2010/10/07
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2010/10/07
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Søren Hauberg, 2010/10/07
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Dave Barnes, 2010/10/08
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Judd Storrs, 2010/10/08
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Jordi Gutiérrez Hermoso, 2010/10/08
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Dave Barnes, 2010/10/10
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Judd Storrs, 2010/10/11
- Re: Equalis Octave group, Dave Barnes, 2010/10/11