On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 11:21 AM, Brian Gough <[email protected]> wrote: > At Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:13:21 -0500, > Jason Lillywhite wrote: > > After reading a little about gsl and trying bindings in Scheme and > > Ruby, I have come to feel that GSL is comparable to matlab, scilab, or > > mathimatica. But since then, have been told by some that I might be > > off a little. How much are we missing out on by using GSL instead of > > say, Matlab when it comes to numerical methods. BTW - I am a beginner > > in MatLab, GSL, and numerical methods. > > See GNU Octave http://www.gnu.org/software/octave/ > It is a GNU replacement for Matlab. > > -- > Brian Gough > (GSL Maintainer) > > Support freedom by joining the FSF > http://www.fsf.org/associate/support_freedom/join_fsf?referrer=37 > > > _______________________________________________ > Help-gsl mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gsl >
If you consider using an environment with a Lispish syntax and builtin support for GSL see also Lush. http://lush.sourceforge.net/ Lush is both interpreted and compiled via C. It is suitable for both rapid prototyping and "hardcore" numeric computation. See Lush helptool for details. A small performance benchmark of Lush compared to Octave resides in its FAQs: http://lush.sourceforge.net/faq.html If you consider using GSL from Common Lisp take a look at GSLL Common Lisp interface: http://common-lisp.net/project/gsll/ -- Ozgur _______________________________________________ Help-gsl mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gsl
