COMPARISION OF ARRAY PATERNS

HERE I COMPARE IT FOR ELEMENTS 4, 8,16,32

Description

HERE IS THE COMPARISON OF ANTENNA ARRAYS FOR 4 , 8 , 16 , 32
 ANTENNA ELEMENTS WITH SAME CURRENT INPUT

• MATLAB release: MATLAB 7.3 (R2006b)
• Other requirements: HERE IS THE COMPARISION OF ANTENNA ARRAYS FOR 4 , 8 , 16 , 32 ANTENNA ELEMANTS WITH SAME CURRENT INPUT

[Jos x@y.z]

Again, complete dreck has found it's way to the FEX again ...

Why anybody else than the author would be interested in something like this remains a complete mystery to me.
No functionality, no help, no comments.
And it even does not follow the submission guidelines (overwritting my variables, clearing my command window, ...)

And the author may have a problem with has caps-lock key ...

[x y]

Jos is incorrect. This submission does meet ALL submission requirements. Here they are yet again:
"*Contact information must be complete and accurate. This information is displayed on the web site and is used by customers and The MathWorks to communicate with you.
* The Submission must not directly compete with products offered by The MathWorks or its partners.
* The Submission must not violate or infringe on any patent, copyright, or other intellectual property right of any other person.
* The Submission must be offered free of charge.
* The Submission must not be offensive.
* The Submission must not be malicious or destructive in nature.
* The title, abstract, description, requirements, and other information must be accurately completed." (This last item does not refer to the submitted M-file, but rather to the information appearing on the FEX page for the submission.)

"overwritting my variables, clearing my command window, ..." are NOT part of the submission guidelines. Please Jos, read the submission guidelines for the FEX, not those of some other group. "functionality", "no help, no comments", etc. are NOT part of the submission guidelines, so do not say that they are.

[John D'Errico]

This may meet the requirements for the FEX, in the sense that it is not offensive, etc. That does not make it good. That merely makes it not offensive. It is still poor.

I'm sorry, but this is still a worthless collection of nearly random bits, worthless to anybody but possibly the author. As it is, a significant portion of this code does nothing more than parrot out the author's name and institute the author belongs to. Is this an advertisement for the author's skills? It says nothing positive in that respect.

Note that there is little hint about what this code does, what the variables are, how to use it, etc.

HAD the author tried even a little bit here, I'd happily argue for a higher rating. What could have been done?

1. Provide reasonable comments, to allow someone to follow what was done. Comments are tremendously valuable in a teaching tool.

2. Provide a link or so to places that will allow a user to learn more.

3. Defined what the variables meant, so that someone could change things and understand what happens.

4. Better, make this into a function, so it does not step all over the user's workspace variables.

With a significant amount of work, one might make this into a viable teaching tool. Until then, its just "poor". xy seems to think that telling people that a minimal effort is "excellent" will help them. It does not. It merely convinces them that they need never bother learning to do better.

[Wolfgang Schwanghart]

xy, I do not understand your intention. As a frequent visitor but infrequent participant at the FEX and CSSM, I am glad for the guidance to files given by the reviewers. Misleading ratings, if positive or negative, are just destructive.

And your rating is just far too high for such a poor submission.

[Jos x@y.z]

xy, you're confusing style and contents. While the style may be good, the contents can be poor. Most (all?) reviewers here are rating contents, whereas you seem to be interested in style only.

btw for this particular submission, both contents and style are poor in my opinion

[x y]

Jos said "While the style may be good, the contents can be poor."

The submission guidelines do not place ANY qualifications on "contents", so it is inappropriate to judge submissions on items not known to the submitter.

If you were in a cake baking contest and that contest gave you submission guidelines that included size, shape, amount of frosting, and date due. In response you submitted a cake that met all these submission guidelines. When the judges came along and "reviewed" your submission, they requested that your submission be removed because it did not contain chocolate. No where in the submission guidelines did it say that the cake had to contain chocolate, but you are disqualified because of it. Is that right? I don't think so, but yet that is how the FEX is run. It isn't right.

[Jos x@y.z]

OK now we are hopefully getting somewhere.
Why will the jury give the first price to a specific cake. Because it is a "valid" cake (submission guidelines) AND THAT CAKE LOOKS GOOD AND TASTES WELL (as assessed by the jury).
And if you ever wanted to buy a cake, you can use that second assessment to make your choice. However, looking for such a cake will become increasingly more difficult if there are a lot of tastless cakes around ...

Can you see the analogy with the FEX?

BTW, why don't give yourself a proper name?

[John D'Errico]

Interesting, but hopelessly flawed, analogy by xy.

Had this actually been a cake in some local contest, the judges there would have assessed its merits as cake. Had the cake been a lumpy, uncooked mess, the judges would have assessed it as poor. Not every cake entered in a contest wins a blue ribbon.

As reviewers, several people have now stated an honest opinion of this piece of code. It is "poor". xy has as yet never seen fit to justify how this has any merit as matlab code. I'm sorry, but the review system is there for a reason. When xy chooses to show a real name and make a credible argument why this is not a waste of internet bandwidth, I might be willing to debate the issue. For example, xy might have chosen to suggest that a file of this nature should be rated as a 2.

Instead, xy appears to lack the moral courage to even use a real name. Its kind of sad.

[Jhon Smith]

OK now we are hopefully getting somewhere.
Why will the jury give the first price to a specific cake. Because it is a "valid" cake (submission guidelines) AND THAT CAKE LOOKS GOOD AND TASTES WELL (as assessed by the jury).
And if you ever wanted to buy a cake, you can use that second assessment to make your choice. However, looking for such a cake will become increasingly more difficult if there are a lot of tastless cakes around ...

Can you see the analogy with the FEX?

BTW, why don't give yourself a proper name?

[joy smith]

smithOK now we are hopefully getting somewhere.
Why will the jury give the first price to a specific cake. Because it is a "valid" cake (submission guidelines) AND THAT CAKE LOOKS GOOD AND TASTES WELL (as assessed by the jury).
And if you ever wanted to buy a cake, you can use that second assessment to make your choice. However, looking for such a cake will become increasingly more difficult if there are a lot of tastless cakes around ...

Can you see the analogy with the FEX?

BTW, why don't give yourself a proper name?

[x x]

 Interesting, but hopelessly flawed, analogy by xy. Had this actually been a cake in some local contest, the judges there would have assessed its merits as cake. Had the cake been a lumpy, uncooked mess, the judges would have assessed it as poor. Not every cake entered in a contest wins a blue ribbon. As reviewers, several people have now stated an honest opinion of this piece of code. It is "poor". xy has as yet never seen fit to justify how this has any merit as matlab code. I'm sorry, but the review system is there for a reason. When xy chooses to show a real name and make a credible argument why this is not a waste of internet bandwidth, I might be willing to debate the issue. For example, xy might have chosen to suggest that a file of this nature should be rated as a 2. Instead, xy appears to lack the moral courage to even use a real name. Its kind of sad.
  

[Wolfgang Schwanghart]

Please, ANUJ TRIPATHI, withdraw your submission... to give an end to this fruitless discussion.

[x y]

In a cake baking contest, participants are given not only submission criteria, but are also given upfront, before they bake and submit their cake, the criteria by which their submission will be judged. No such thing exists for the FEX. The last FEX submission criteria should be a link to the clearly defined criteria by which a submission gets a 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 score. Without that knowledge, a submitter can only be judged on what the submission guidelines are. The judging criteria needs to be put in plain sight. Without it, submitters are kept in the dark and are rightly disturbed for poor reviews.

[Duane Hanselman]

I sent an email directly to the author requesting that they withdraw this submission.