Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:53:14 +0530 From: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in> To: "Jason C. Wells" <jcwells@nwlink.com> Cc: Roelof Osinga <roelof@nisser.com>, cjclark@alum.mit.edu, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Language for Modeling Mechanical System Message-ID: <20000727115314.F7570@physics.iisc.ernet.in> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.96.1000726231530.7653A-100000@utah>; from jcwells@nwlink.com on Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 11:22:43PM -0700 References: <20000727112544.B7570@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <Pine.SOL.3.96.1000726231530.7653A-100000@utah>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > But I don't think fortran is any help at all for symbolic > > manipulation, which I thought was your original requirement. It's > > certainly used a lot for numbercrunching. > > I guess it depends on how I want my code to work. It would be nice to > layout a couple of underlying diff eqs and then solve or integrate those > expressions as needed. > > On the other hand, I can just manually write out all of the functions I > need without using some higher level library. The first method seems > slicker. The latter method might be more likely to get done. The second would also probably be much faster (for the computer), though less flexible. If speed isn't terribly important, I'd suggest something like octave or scilab (both matlab clones). They're very fast to code in and handle arrays and matrices nicely, which is useful for discretising diff equations. Only numerical stuff, however, no symbolic manipulation. If speed is important, Fortran or C would be the best bet, I think. There are plenty of canned integrators available for both, but for Fortran especially. Rahul. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000727115314.F7570>