The poor quality of image processing toolboxes is what turned me off Scilab to GNU Octave, which has a very good imaging toolbox. Or Python, which with its various imaging libraries and scientific/numeric libraries is now a serious competitor for matrix-oriented software like Matlab/Scilab/Octave. I've written two image processing textbooks, and at no time has Scilab ever been a serious contender for their software.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 7:20 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 02/17/2016 01:23 AM, AlvaroOsvaldo a écrit : > > I am worried, in previous versions of scilab, I implemented a medium > project for scientific computing with scilab at that time had many memory > leaks and had been a nightmare. With the new updates that was fixed and > this much better. But now I am implementing another project involving > massive image processing. And the three atoms for this, one does not work, > one does not load images but the manual says they can do, and other charges > but leak the computer's memory and it took me longer skirting the problem > than implementing the solution. And worse, because this the system is much > slower than it should. This atom memory failure it has been known, however, > despite it make impraticable to use the atom for medium and large projects, > makes three years that no one gets the bug. > forge.scilab.org/index.php/p/IPD/issues/992/ There are high expectations > with Scilab 6 and I believe we will have a much better platform. But for > what you know, in the meantime we will run out of many atoms, and this > greatly reduces the possibility of working in scilab. What is the future of > Scilab? For now, the impression I have is that the atoms are abandoned and > without the atoms the usefulness of scilab is reduced a lot. > > > Hi, > > I think there are two issues here: > > 1) The sad state of image processing toolbox with Scilab. It's terrrible. > Image processing with Scilab is a nightmare. Every other language I use is > far better than Scilab in this area (even extremely young language like > Julia offers a better experience. The 3 toolboxes are either broken, > unmaintained or difficult (or impossible) to install. And the experience is > even worse under Linux (IPD for example requires a very old version of > opencv to be manually installed under Linux which is a daunting task for > most user and which introduces many compatibility issues with other > softwares relying on opencv). > > 2) The lack of information on the life (or lack of life) for a given atoms > module. I know some information is available on the atoms website, but I've > always found it difficult to determine whether the package was long dead or > under active development. There are some long dead modules that are still > listed alongside with actively maintained ones and that show excellent > rating. It's a bit confusing. > > Concerning the first issue, image processing with scilab, I think a basic > core image support should be part of scilab. > > Antoine > > > > > ------------------------------ > View this message in context: What is the future of Scilab? > <http://mailinglists.scilab.org/What-is-the-future-of-Scilab-tp4033471.html> > Sent from the Scilab users - Mailing Lists Archives mailing list archive > <http://mailinglists.scilab.org/Scilab-users-Mailing-Lists-Archives-f2602246.html> > at Nabble.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing > [email protected]http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > -- [image: http://www.facebook.com/alasdairmcandrew] [image: https://twitter.com/amca01] <https://twitter.com/amca01> <https://www.linkedin.com/in/alasdair-mcandrew-108178a> <https://plus.google.com/+AlasdairMcAndrew/posts>
_______________________________________________ users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.scilab.org/mailman/listinfo/users
