Got Questions? Get Answers.
Discover MakerZone

MATLAB and Simulink resources for Arduino, LEGO, and Raspberry Pi

Learn more

Discover what MATLAB® can do for your career.

Opportunities for recent engineering grads.

Apply Today

Thread Subject:
sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Bruno Luong

Date: 9 Apr, 2010 21:58:05

Message: 1 of 50

The Savitzky-Golay filter (Signal Processing Toolbox) no longer supports array of single type. I bumps into an unexpected error message when running my code on 2010A. It seems TMW just adds a type check in this function (lines 51-55) which was not there previously. The odd thing is that
- It works just fine if the check code is commented out.
- Unless if I overlook - I can't find this behavior documented in the release note.

So my question is simply: who can explain "why"?

Bruno

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Bruno Luong

Date: 9 Apr, 2010 22:03:05

Message: 2 of 50

"Bruno Luong" <b.luong@fogale.findmycountry> wrote in message <hpo7td$f9f$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
>
>
> So my question is simply: who can explain "why"?

PS: Typing "why" on command window does not really help.

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Honglei Chen

Date: 9 Apr, 2010 22:41:18

Message: 3 of 50

Hi Bruno,

If you open the documentation for Signal Processing Toolbox and go to
Getting Started -> Overview -> Product Overview, under Supported Data Types
section, it states that

The Signal Processing Toolbox software supports only double-precision
inputs. If you input single-precision floating-point or integer data, you
should not expect to receive correct results, and in many cases, an error
will occur. The Filter Design Toolbox? product, in conjunction with the
Fixed-Point Toolbox? product, enables single-precision floating-point and
fixed-point support for filtering and filter design.

HTH,

Honglei



Bruno Luong wrote:

> The Savitzky-Golay filter (Signal Processing Toolbox) no longer supports
> array of single type. I bumps into an unexpected error message when
> running my code on 2010A. It seems TMW just adds a type check in this
> function (lines 51-55) which was not there previously. The odd thing is
> that - It works just fine if the check code is commented out. - Unless if
> I overlook - I can't find this behavior documented in the release note.
>
> So my question is simply: who can explain "why"?
>
> Bruno

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Bruno Luong

Date: 10 Apr, 2010 08:35:24

Message: 4 of 50

Honglei Chen <Honglei.Chen@mathworks.com> wrote in message <hpoaee$l6j$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Hi Bruno,
>
> If you open the documentation for Signal Processing Toolbox and go to
> Getting Started -> Overview -> Product Overview, under Supported Data Types
> section, it states that
>
> The Signal Processing Toolbox software supports only double-precision
> inputs. If you input single-precision floating-point or integer data, you
> should not expect to receive correct results, and in many cases, an error
> will occur. The Filter Design Toolbox? product, in conjunction with the
> Fixed-Point Toolbox? product, enables single-precision floating-point and
> fixed-point support for filtering and filter design.
>
> HTH,
>
> Honglei
>

Thank you for Honglei, now it get even more question. The Release Notes of Version 6.13 of Signale Pr. Tbx states:
"Single-Precision Support Added for dfilt Objects

In R2010a, users can construct dfilt objects with single-precision floating point arithmetic. Set the Arithmetic property to 'single' to obtain a single-precision floating point representation of the filter coefficients.".

Clearly it extend some of the capability of SINGLE.

TMW must take more seriously the backward compatibility into account. The decision to cut down the action of the set function or move to another toolbox can be problematic problem for us.

We develop commercial code that measures the blade of a turbine engine. Monitoring an engine with 20 blades running at 10kRPM requires a lot of memory. Storing it on single increase the monitoring time by 2 given the limited amount of memory. If TMW decides not to support SINGLE, then the spec of our product divide by half in the same token. In this particular case, fortunately we can still access to the source code and comment out the unfortunate checking part and get back to the original specification. But I must say, reducing a filter method that can no longer work on SINGLE, and further more without apparent numerical reason that can justify it (Yes I test the filter for few years with SINGLE and it works just fine) , and without proper warning in the release note is not the right thing to do.

I used to defend the use of Matlab in our commercial product when I discuss to my colleagues about software development strategy. I'll be more reluctant to do so in the future.

Bruno

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Jan Simon

Date: 10 Apr, 2010 16:30:14

Message: 5 of 50

Dear Bruno!

> I used to defend the use of Matlab in our commercial product when I discuss to my colleagues about software development strategy. I'll be more reluctant to do so in the future.

I agree.
I had a lot of troubles with loosing features in newer Matlab versions, especially if they are not mentioned in the documentation as e.g. the FOPEN('vaxd') problem.
I also defend the use of Matlab for our software for clinical decision making --- but I absolutely recommend our custumors *not* to update to newer versions! Obviously this should conflict with the financial interests of TMW, so I'm really surprised, that Matlab has still no long term support (bugs are fixed in the newest or more likely in the next version only), which would be essential for using Matlab for "serious" fields.

Jan

PS: Of course I know, that half of the CSSMers are working "seriously" with Matlab (the other half tries to get their homework solved by anyone else). But I have the impression that decisions about surgical operations of children should in no way and under no circumstances be influenced by (undocumented) changes of the computing system. I know, that every software is subject to changes, which must cause incompatibilities ever. Nevertheless, it would be nice to see that TMW does its very best.

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Derek O'Connor

Date: 11 Apr, 2010 17:41:03

Message: 6 of 50

"Bruno Luong" <b.luong@fogale.findmycountry> wrote in message <hppd8c$36q$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
--- snip --
> I used to defend the use of Matlab in our commercial product when I discuss to my colleagues about software development strategy. I'll be more reluctant to do so in the future.
>
> Bruno


I agree with Bruno.

For me the greatest deficiency in Matlab is the lack of SINGLE floats, and various types of integers. It may be time to move on, or back to C or Fortran.

Derek ("Make Mine a Single") O'Connor

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Honglei Chen

Date: 13 Apr, 2010 22:00:53

Message: 7 of 50

Hi Bruno,

We take backwards compatibility very seriously. In releases prior to
R2010a, sgolayfilt() and other functions in Signal Processing Toolbox
returned a double precision output even when the input was single
precision. If you expected to save memory you probably wanted single
inputs to produce single outputs. We had concerns that that this implicit
cast (single in, double out) would be unexpected. Since this function
never really supported single precision we opted to check for input data
types and error out instead of returning what might be considered a silent
wrong answer in case of single data type inputs.

If you used to pass single precision inputs to sgolayfilt(), the best
workaround is to explicitly cast these inputs to double (e.g.
sgolayfilt(double(x),k,f) where x was single). You can also cast the output
to single if there is no further downstream processing or if the code
supports single data types. With explicit casts, your code will work the
same way before and after R2010a.

You are correct that starting from version 6.13 (R2010a), Signal Processing
Toolbox supports single data type in dfilt objects. Notice however that the
single precision support is limited to these objects. In general, Signal
Processing Toolbox functions only support the double data type. Sorry to
hear the last upgrade has caused you some pain.

HTH,

Honglei

Bruno Luong wrote:

> Honglei Chen <Honglei.Chen@mathworks.com> wrote in message
> <hpoaee$l6j$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
>> Hi Bruno,
>>
>> If you open the documentation for Signal Processing Toolbox and go to
>> Getting Started -> Overview -> Product Overview, under Supported Data
>> Types section, it states that
>>
>> The Signal Processing Toolbox software supports only double-precision
>> inputs. If you input single-precision floating-point or integer data, you
>> should not expect to receive correct results, and in many cases, an error
>> will occur. The Filter Design Toolbox? product, in conjunction with the
>> Fixed-Point Toolbox? product, enables single-precision floating-point and
>> fixed-point support for filtering and filter design.
>>
>> HTH,
>>
>> Honglei
>>
>
> Thank you for Honglei, now it get even more question. The Release Notes of
> Version 6.13 of Signale Pr. Tbx states: "Single-Precision Support Added
> for dfilt Objects
>
> In R2010a, users can construct dfilt objects with single-precision
> floating point arithmetic. Set the Arithmetic property to 'single' to
> obtain a single-precision floating point representation of the filter
> coefficients.".
>
> Clearly it extend some of the capability of SINGLE.
>
> TMW must take more seriously the backward compatibility into account. The
> decision to cut down the action of the set function or move to another
> toolbox can be problematic problem for us.
>
> We develop commercial code that measures the blade of a turbine engine.
> Monitoring an engine with 20 blades running at 10kRPM requires a lot of
> memory. Storing it on single increase the monitoring time by 2 given the
> limited amount of memory. If TMW decides not to support SINGLE, then the
> spec of our product divide by half in the same token. In this particular
> case, fortunately we can still access to the source code and comment out
> the unfortunate checking part and get back to the original specification.
> But I must say, reducing a filter method that can no longer work on
> SINGLE, and further more without apparent numerical reason that can
> justify it (Yes I test the filter for few years with SINGLE and it works
> just fine) , and without proper warning in the release note is not the
> right thing to do.
>
> I used to defend the use of Matlab in our commercial product when I
> discuss to my colleagues about software development strategy. I'll be more
> reluctant to do so in the future.
>
> Bruno

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: dpb

Date: 14 Apr, 2010 02:01:15

Message: 8 of 50

Jan Simon wrote:
...

> I also defend the use of Matlab for our software for clinical decision
> making --- ...
> ... But I have the impression that decisions about surgical
> operations of children should in no way and under no circumstances be
> influenced by (undocumented) changes of the computing system. I know,
> that every software is subject to changes, which must cause
> incompatibilities ever. Nevertheless, it would be nice to see that TMW
> does its very best.

You probably drove a very quiver into TMW legals, there, Jan... :)

I've not read it recently, but I'd be quite surprised if the licensing
information doesn't have specific disclaimers and all for such "critical
use" applications as medical, air flight control (and probably
automotive now given the propensity there), nuclear design, etc., etc.,
etc., ...

When in the commercial nuclear design arena I always thought it a little
odd that the tools had such limitations on them by the vendors but there
was no alternative (and still isn't for the most part) unless a
vendor/researcher were to write all their own toolsets from scratch as
well. Of course the likelihood of that toolset being any less buggy
than the commercial compiler would likely be indetectable from zero to
the first approximation and probably more so as a practical matter.

A disadvantage I see w/ Matlab and similar products is that being
proprietary there is not a broader Standards group that can add some
stability and balance to the progression process which makes breaks in
backward compatibility more difficult anyway, even if not entirely
removing them. This, of course, is a double-edged sword in that
standards take much longer to get revisions into and therefore lag and
mean less rapid innovation. OTOH, w/ a Standard body there is at least
an opportunity to comment before final acceptance on particularly sore
points even if one doesn't have the wherewithal to actually participate.
  And, once there is an actual Standard, then the vendors have reason to
comply and users have recourse to expect both compliance and bug fixes
when found.

In other languages w/ Standards, there are, of course, vendor extensions
but at least there is a core basis that is pretty much immutable. If a
Standard does devolve sufficiently from some requisite form, one can in
that environment also choose to continue to stay within the previous
Standard and generally there are toolsets that conform although they may
also eventually be sunsetted by vendors.

But, of course, all that is simply an essay...

--

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Jan Simon

Date: 9 Jun, 2010 21:27:21

Message: 9 of 50

Dear Bruno!

> The Savitzky-Golay filter (Signal Processing Toolbox) no longer supports array of single type.
> So my question is simply: who can explain "why"?
> Bruno

This does not answer your question. But here you can find a Savitzky-Golay filter, which is faster than Matlab's implementation and operates on SINGLEs:
  http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/5661

Jan

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 9 Jun, 2010 22:47:08

Message: 10 of 50

Hi Bruno Luong, Jan Simon, Derek O'Connor and dpb,

I am thankful to all of you for the occasional programming lessons you gave me on this newsgrop. In turn, I'd like to share a few remarks on this this thread from my point of view (as of an economist), as these are sorts of economic and legal matters. If at least one mathematician / technical engineer out there learnt something from this post, it would be worth the effort.

I hit on the thread accidentaly. Either of you have been implementing Matlab in your commercial projects, involving all kinds of responsibility towards clients. You have experienced troubles with backward compatibility of the new releases, that could eventually have serious, far reaching consequences. Even despite difficulties, you have been defending Matlab against the team of your colleagues. Now, what happened?

This thread, I mean. First, the inappropriately gentle message of Bruno posted to the newsgroup, instead of addressing them a letter or something they would *have to* deal with officially. Second, the phlegmatic *ignorant* replies of the MathWorks guy. Certainly they test each new release and certainly they do care for compatibility. It's rather the way they communicate the changes and especially, their notion on legal issues. This should be communication with a customer of Bruno Luong size on a matter as this one???!

My impression from this happy company is that they do not know, or do not want to know, what *public relations* are about and in particular, I am afraid, they have no legal department at all, nor do they hire any legal services.

Maybe it is not obvious to your eyes, or you are just not into it, but to my eyes as of an economist one thing is pretty obvious. If you'd get any of the difficulties you experienced to the U.S. court, you would make it to millions of dollars case!!! Just ask out any laywer to do it for $1 + 20% of the sum in question. They would stand queue for you.

I hope I just dream and that this is not reality. Otherwise, did you continue then in this communication? How did it end? Please, Bruno, let us know.


PS1 For Honglei Chen, a few tips:
------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Bruno,

thanks for your communication.

% describe briefly how you understand the issue raised

% Explain the position of MW to the problem

Should you wish to raise more questions on this problem, I will be glad to assist you directly at (...) \% e-mail, phone.

Together with the team of my colleagues, we would appreciate the possibility to consult the difficulties you experienced regarding this and other parcitular issues with our latest release (...)
------------------------------------------------------------

PS2 For Bruno Luong - with service providers like MW try out this:
*Am just f... upset!!*
*Let me speak with your superintendent*
*I'm really starting to be nervous*
% List action you will take as consequence, let them feel they will loose you as a customer and could face legal process
% Forget about polite and respectful communication for matters as this one. Otherwise they just continue in their winter sleep.

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Jan Simon

Date: 10 Jun, 2010 10:52:06

Message: 11 of 50

Dear Sscnekro,

> % Forget about polite and respectful communication for matters as this one. Otherwise they just continue in their winter sleep.

The employees of TMW are human and they try their very best to keep Matlab stable, efficient and a source of money for them and for us.
Some of their solutions are suboptimal under the user's point of view. Some changes in new versions are simply bugs, which are emerging in all complex systems. And some disadvantageous new "features" are caused by the limitation of the communication between users and TMW and between their software engineers and developpers.

I do not see any reason to forget politeness and I do see a lot of reasons to intesify the respectful communication.
I had a very polite conversation with my local Matlab distributor about the fact, that I strongly recommend several users of my programs to stay at Matlab 6.5.1 due to the limited compatibility and the amazing list of open bugs in Matlab 7. I've mentioned the need of a stable release, which is maintained by bugfixes for several years without introducing new features and new bugs. Then, and only then, I will suggest to buy new Matlab versions. The distributor can convert this information to $: 20 clients * (Matlab + Signal + DataBase + Statistics toolbox).
Obviously this sum is not impressive and will not directly influence the strategies of TMW. I do not hear a lot of voices in this newsgroup calling for a stable release, but I assume there is a market for that. The distributor mentioned the zero-bug initiative in the cooperation with a large Japanese car manufacturer. I have respectfully explained my personal zero-buck initiative.

Finallly some labs using my software had to update to Matlab 2009a for other reasons and I've ported the functions and started exhaustive tests. I had to care about 4 ugly incompatibilities (no VAX-D file support, bugs in END and BACKSLASH operator, rounding/truncation for DOUBLE->INT conversion), but I can use a lot of new features increasing the usability of Matlab and the programs.
My conclusion: TMW is not in winter sleep. They have improved Matlab in the past and I hope they will do it in the future considering backward compatibilities. I'll politely repeat my appreciation of a stable release and I assume Bruno has good reasons for his friendly tone.

Kind regards, Jan

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 10 Jun, 2010 12:07:04

Message: 12 of 50

Jan, what you wrote only re-confirms my point. May I go back to some of what you wrote and ask a few questions?

Q1: Why is the communication btw users and TMW developers limited?
Q2: Do you think, are the newsgroup posts a good representative sample of TMW customers viewpoints and needs? If not, can you give an example of such a communication channel between TMW and a broad customer base?
Q3: In what ways has TMW supported you in the testing phase?
Q4: Have you already succeeded in negotiating a particular change to TMW products? Why do you think the other customer was succesful in negotiating zero-bug?

As a bottom line to this, I just hope, should you hear two guys talking on something in your field, with the first getting it wrong wrong wrong and the latter getting it wrong wrong wrong, would you not care, too, especially knowing how much it involves?

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Jan Simon

Date: 10 Jun, 2010 14:48:04

Message: 13 of 50

Dear Sscnekro,

> Jan, what you wrote only re-confirms my point.

Fine. It was not my intention to disagree. Similar to your point I think that more communication between The Users and The MathWorks would assist improving the development. I'm really convinced, that politeness and respect are needed for a successful communication.
The Dalai Lama said, that criticism and the formulation of negative emotions must be avoided as long as it does not lead to an improvement of its causes. Perhaps he did not focus upon the customer support of a programming suite.

> Q1: Why is the communication btw users and TMW developers limited?

In my opinion, the anonymous channels impede the communication, because they are not the biological way humen are used to talk. Sending a request to support@mathworks or files@mathworks is ever a kind of hard-bitten. But if I mail e.g. Helen or Shari directly, the answers are quick, direct and helpful (thanks again!).
I've sent some ideas for vectorizing FILTFILT and a 65% faster version of IND2RGB to support@mathworks. The polite guy forwarded the message to the "developper board" and there it waits and wastes diskspace for the last 18 month. But whenever I had a direct and personal contact to a developper or another employee of MathWorks, they have been ever interested, quick and helpful. The distributor I've mentioned in the last post called me at Friday 6 p.m. to give me new informations.

> Q2: Do you think, are the newsgroup posts a good representative sample of TMW customers viewpoints and needs? If not, can you give an example of such a communication channel between TMW and a broad customer base?

I do not know such a channel. ImageAnalyst spoke of a meeting with the group for image processing. There are some meetings between the "Japanese car manufacturer" and TMW (I assume this deals with more than 20 clients * 4 toolboxes = x$). I think, the contents of this newsgroup is not representative, e.g. the "0:0.1:3 == 0.3?!" questions. But some posts caught the attention of TMW in the past.

> Q3: In what ways has TMW supported you in the testing phase?

TMW delivered the free test versions of Matlab and the needed toolboxes (some more than I checked out on the Web page).
After some posts in this newsgroup they answered, that the VaxD support has really vanished without any notes in the documentation.
The list of open bugs is really helpful for me.
I've been very surprised that TMW did not accept a bugreport concerning ANCESTOR without knowing my license number.

> Q4: Have you already succeeded in negotiating a particular change to TMW products? Why do you think the other customer was succesful in negotiating zero-bug?

I do not exactly know, what the zero-bug initiative is. As far as I understand Kurt Goedel it is impossible to create a powerful program with zero bugs, because there is always an input which let the algorithm explode.
Some bugs of 2009b are fixed in 2010a, e.g. described in:
  http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/264225
Nevertheless, it is not an option to upgrade again, because the testing takes about 2 month and 2010a contains new bugs, and 2010b, and 2011a, and 2011b, ... A long-term-support version would be a great benefit and I'd expect that the experiences growing from such a version would help to improve the whole product.

What specific problems did you have with which tools? What are your experiences with the TMW support team?

Kind regards, Jan

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 10 Jun, 2010 17:06:05

Message: 14 of 50

Jan,

very good. Maybe, step by step, we get there. I agree that piece is superior to negative emotions, unfortunately, in business one often needs to be assertive. If pieceful and compromising style was helpful to you, the better. Now, as you were so kind and gave your answers to my questions, I'd try to build on it a bit by a few YES / NO questions. Please read it first to the end (to the point), you will see that there is no need to write in answer to each question.

[1] You work on software for clinical decisions. Do you find it important to involve your clients in software development?

[2] You have much less clients than TMW. Suppose you'd go big. Your firm would not be able to communicate with each client individually, except for LARGE ones. Would you find useful, should one of permanent tasks of your *PR dept* be reading posts newsgroups to filter out information for management and product development decisions? To make the sites *represent statistically meaningful sample* of your highly diversified customer base, would you see usefulness of intelligent web design - so that as many customers with different licence, age, area of application as possible would be involved and keep returning to the sites? Would you find useful to run polls?

> The polite guy forwarded the message to the "developper board" and there it waits and wastes diskspace for the last 18 month. But whenever I had a direct and personal contact
[3] The problem called organization. Do you agree, that the software developers and engineers at TMW are simply right guys, trying to get the product quality and usefulness up to edge of own possibilities? Do you think if they would be receiving info from ML users as under [1] and [3], would they not take it into account? Do they receive such info, and of what quality?

[4] You 'd make rather frequent product upgrades, adding new features to your software. Would find it mutually good to offer 24/24 technical assitance to your clients while they are implementing new realese? Woud you find it important to apply legal disclaimers with new releases?

[5] Do you think, the software developers at TMW are less smart than you? If you are able of seeing that "A long-term-support version would be a great benefit and I'd expect that the experiences growing from such a version would help to improve the whole product.", 'd they not bee able of seeing the same?

I would expect your answers 'd be: [1] Yes [2] Rather yes [3] Yes | Maybe not. [4] Yes | Yes [5] No | Yes.

Fine, so coming to the point ant that is at the same time answer to your question:
> What specific problems did you have with which tools? What are your experiences with the TMW support team?
I like ML as a product. In general, I'm a fan of the guys who develop and engineer it. In particular, I respect Steven Lord, the others I don't know. I also find individuals at TMW helpful and quick (e.g. Shari), unlike "official ways". So, what is my problem? The TMW as an organization, the way processes involving customers are managed, the websites including newsgroup that simply ignore the potential of intelligent web based communication, and so on. There are companies delivering less complex products with much less responsibility (impact), yet they are willing to invest much more in PR and legal issues. And admittedly, this thread got me up.

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Walter Roberson

Date: 10 Jun, 2010 18:58:58

Message: 15 of 50

sscnekro wrote:

> [1] You work on software for clinical decisions. Do you find it
> important to involve your clients in software development?

I _do_ work on software for clinical decisions. Our clients do not have all
that much input into the software development, as we develop the software and
they hire us to run the software on their dataset and give them the
information they are looking for. When it eventually comes time to make the
software available in the clinics themselves, the software has to be
completely rewritten anyhow to ISO 900x standards, if the software is for
decisions about humans; after that the medical device approval process takes 2
years and costs approximately $2 million, if everything goes perfectly; we
spin off companies to take care of that kind of work.

Does this approach work? Yes. We are one of the most cost-effective
departments, and our spin-off companies have been amongst the largest Initial
Public {stock} Offers in Canadian history.

(And to be clear here: we have no connection with TMW other than as full-price
customers.)

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 10 Jun, 2010 21:20:20

Message: 16 of 50

> I _do_ work on software for clinical decisions.

Yup. I'm trying to imagine that. In the first phase, they let you to compute everyting they need and you develop the software to enable such type of computations. In the second phase, the software is internalized, so that clinics personnel can run computations.

So, what are the differences compared to ML and TMW? Do end-users of your software actively program in it? If not, they need to be involved in the software development to a lesser extent than ML users. The whole process is (much) > 2y, upgrades are not that frequent, every bug is eliminated before the clinics is "left on its own" with your product. Your product is tailored specifically for the client.

TMW faces a much more challenging situation. The customer base is highly diversified. Your software is a "ready to use" end-product whilst Matlab serves as an input for further programming. There can go much more wrong with ML than with your software. Etc. But, TMW spends much less time / money / efforts *with the clients* being involved in *their processes* than you / the spin-offs.

Faces more challenging - - spends less. And that's the point. In my view, the quality and depth of customer related processes at TMW is somewhat inadequate to the nature of the products. I can even imagine that TMW developers / engineers would like to be more involved with clients, prolong the testing phases, work on a stable version etc., but such decisions depend on management / other depts. If they prefer to do it that way, good, but then they 'd at least need a strong legal dept and smart disclaimers.

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Jan Simon

Date: 10 Jun, 2010 23:02:04

Message: 17 of 50

Dear Sscnekro,

> [1] You work on software for clinical decisions. Do you find it important to involve your clients in software development?

I'm not really sure about this question.
Of course the clients are involved in the design of the software, because the tools should solve their problems. But the development details are my part of the work.
It is even hard to define, who the client is: The physio-therapists who perform the measurements with the patients, the surgeons who need the results, the patients or the health insurance who pay?
 
> [2] You have much less clients than TMW. Suppose you'd go big. Your firm would not be able to communicate with each client individually, except for LARGE ones.

I cannot go big. For the actual scientific work in my software it was necessary that I understand the problem. I had to perform the measurements by my self, I had to look onto the bones during the surgical operations, I had to be in touch with many patients personally. We measure e.g. gait patterns of 3 year old children and I had to learn that the best software design is worthless, if the person, who instructs the child to walk a specific way, wears white cloths or the child is hungry.
A personal and physical contact to patients and software users costs a lot of time, so I cannot go big.

As I've said before, I think that anonymous communication is inefficient. Therefore I decided not to do the same.

> Do you agree, that the software developers and engineers at TMW are simply right guys, trying to get the product quality and usefulness up to edge of own possibilities?

Some of Matlab's toolbox functions are amazingly ugly and inefficient. There are a lot of tips from MLINT in Matlab 2009a. Therefore I have the impression, that the quality of Matlab functions has a Poisson distribution.

> [5] Do you think, the software developers at TMW are less smart than you? If you are able of seeing that "A long-term-support version would be a great benefit and I'd expect that the experiences growing from such a version would help to improve the whole product.", 'd they not bee able of seeing the same?

The developers do not see my special needs, if I do not tell them. This is not a question of smartness.
 
> So, what is my problem? The TMW as an organization, the way processes involving customers are managed, the websites including newsgroup that simply ignore the potential of intelligent web based communication, and so on. There are companies delivering less complex products with much less responsibility (impact), yet they are willing to invest much more in PR and legal issues. And admittedly, this thread got me up.

Let me ask you again, because I'm really want to know: What is *your* problem with Matlab or TMW? You point to problems of TMW.

All big organizations loose the contact to the users: Microsoft does not offer the tools I need, my goverment does not care for my specific problems, and it is a hard bureaucratic work to get some hours for observations with the Hubble space telescope. Human brains are designed for group sizes of 12 persons. Unfortunately it is obviously impossible to build big things with 12 persons: computers, cars, skyscrapers, newspapers, helicopters, or a programming framework as Matlab. This is the same problem since we tried to build a tower in Babylon.

Anyhow, this has no relation to Savitzky-Golay-Filters anymore. I think, we should wait to solve the problems of TMW until they employ us, pay enough money and allow us personal communications with users and developers.

Good night, Jan

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Joaquim Luis

Date: 10 Jun, 2010 23:41:04

Message: 18 of 50

Honglei Chen <Honglei.Chen@mathworks.com> wrote in message <hq2pim$599$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> Hi Bruno,
>
> We take backwards compatibility very seriously.

You do???
So may I ask, where is the Maltab compiler right now?

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 00:12:04

Message: 19 of 50

> Anyhow, this has no relation to Savitzky-Golay-Filters anymore. I think, we should wait to solve the problems of TMW until they employ us, pay enough money and allow us personal communications with users and developers.
> Good night, Jan

Jan, you are right, it's time to go to bed. But you know, if more readers were of my background, it would suffice to post a small sentence here and there on "the happy company", they'd understand ;OP

Good night also to you, sleep well, keeping a part of the TMW mission in your heart: "Our goal is to change the world (...)" Not kidding, see
http://www.mathworks.com/company/aboutus/mission_values/mission.html

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Jan Simon

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 07:51:06

Message: 20 of 50

Dear Sscnekro,

> Good night also to you, sleep well, keeping a part of the TMW mission in your heart: "Our goal is to change the world (...)" Not kidding, see
> http://www.mathworks.com/company/aboutus/mission_values/mission.html

Good grief! I did not know this page.
I thought TMW just suffers and profits from the typical effects of human brains an the emerging dynamic of large complex systems.

<cite>ultimate computing environment [...] strive to be the leading worldwide developer and supplier of technical computing software. [...] ethical business practices;</cite>

This is a mission beyond "create stable software with good usability and offer fair conditions to users and employees".

Dumbfounded, Jan

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 10:30:25

Message: 21 of 50

> Dumbfounded

Jan, may we agree on one thing? When you see in my posts or posts of the others to encounter some programming problems, you and other guys take the effort to reply. Often either of you remark 'Don't go that way'. As you have *good reasons* to alert us. I just hope that all of you will continue being merciful. In my turn, if I am just trying to show the other readers some insights owing to my background that is different from theirs, perhaps bcs I have good reasons for that. Thanks.

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: dpb

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 12:31:33

Message: 22 of 50

Jan Simon wrote:
> Dear Sscnekro,
>
>> Good night also to you, sleep well, keeping a part of the TMW mission
>> in your heart: "Our goal is to change the world (...)" Not kidding, see
>> http://www.mathworks.com/company/aboutus/mission_values/mission.html
>
> Good grief! I did not know this page.
> I thought TMW just suffers and profits from the typical effects of human
> brains an the emerging dynamic of large complex systems.
> <cite>ultimate computing environment [...] strive to be the leading
> worldwide developer and supplier of technical computing software. [...]
> ethical business practices;</cite>
>
> This is a mission beyond "create stable software with good usability and
> offer fair conditions to users and employees".
>
> Dumbfounded, Jan

Chuckle...

I'd say that mission statement demonstrates completely that indeed TMW
_HAS_ fallen trap to the "dynamic of large complex systems". How else
could one generate such claptrap other than by committee? :)

--

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Steve Eddins

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 13:17:33

Message: 23 of 50

On 6/11/2010 8:31 AM, dpb wrote:
> Jan Simon wrote:
>> Dear Sscnekro,
>>
>>> Good night also to you, sleep well, keeping a part of the TMW mission
>>> in your heart: "Our goal is to change the world (...)" Not kidding, see
>>> http://www.mathworks.com/company/aboutus/mission_values/mission.html
>>
>> Good grief! I did not know this page.
>> I thought TMW just suffers and profits from the typical effects of
>> human brains an the emerging dynamic of large complex systems.
>> <cite>ultimate computing environment [...] strive to be the leading
>> worldwide developer and supplier of technical computing software.
>> [...] ethical business practices;</cite>
>>
>> This is a mission beyond "create stable software with good usability
>> and offer fair conditions to users and employees".
>>
>> Dumbfounded, Jan
>
> Chuckle...
>
> I'd say that mission statement demonstrates completely that indeed TMW
> _HAS_ fallen trap to the "dynamic of large complex systems". How else
> could one generate such claptrap other than by committee? :)
>
> --

Claptrap? What a cynical outlook. I've worked at MathWorks for 16 years.
The mission accurately reflected our beliefs back then when we had just
200 employees, and it accurately reflects our beliefs now.

---
Steve Eddins
http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: dpb

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 13:35:13

Message: 24 of 50

Steve Eddins wrote:
> On 6/11/2010 8:31 AM, dpb wrote:
...

>> I'd say that mission statement demonstrates completely that indeed TMW
>> _HAS_ fallen trap to the "dynamic of large complex systems". How else
>> could one generate such claptrap other than by committee? :)
>>
>> --
>
> Claptrap? What a cynical outlook. I've worked at MathWorks for 16 years.
> The mission accurately reflected our beliefs back then when we had just
> 200 employees, and it accurately reflects our beliefs now.
...

I guess so...such words at that level remind me of nothing but
"management bingo" and/or computer-generated phrases.

A recasting of the ideas in somewhat more modest terms I could
stomach...that wording seems "over the top".

Then again, I've been thru over 40 years of employment from large to
small to self and seen innumerable iterations of dogma which has
undoubtedly had its cumulative effects...

--

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Steve Eddins

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 13:57:38

Message: 25 of 50

On 6/11/2010 9:35 AM, dpb wrote:
> Steve Eddins wrote:
>> On 6/11/2010 8:31 AM, dpb wrote:
> ...
>
>>> I'd say that mission statement demonstrates completely that indeed TMW
>>> _HAS_ fallen trap to the "dynamic of large complex systems". How else
>>> could one generate such claptrap other than by committee? :)
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Claptrap? What a cynical outlook. I've worked at MathWorks for 16
>> years. The mission accurately reflected our beliefs back then when we
>> had just 200 employees, and it accurately reflects our beliefs now.
> ...
>
> I guess so...such words at that level remind me of nothing but
> "management bingo" and/or computer-generated phrases.
>
> A recasting of the ideas in somewhat more modest terms I could
> stomach...that wording seems "over the top".
>
> Then again, I've been thru over 40 years of employment from large to
> small to self and seen innumerable iterations of dogma which has
> undoubtedly had its cumulative effects...

I understand your reaction. I've also been skeptical of some corporate
mission statements. But I can connect every phrase of the technology,
business, human, and social mission statements to concrete and
long-lasting attitudes, activities, and practices in place at MathWorks.
  The joy and reward of striving to achieve these challenging ideals is
what keeps me coming to work.

---
Steve Eddins
http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Steven Lord

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 14:17:38

Message: 26 of 50


"Joaquim Luis" <jluis@--ualg--.pt> wrote in message
news:hurt6g$eu3$1@fred.mathworks.com...
> Honglei Chen <Honglei.Chen@mathworks.com> wrote in message
> <hq2pim$599$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
>> Hi Bruno,
>>
>> We take backwards compatibility very seriously.
>
> You do???
> So may I ask, where is the Maltab compiler right now?

Right here.

http://www.mathworks.com/products/compiler/

If you intended to ask "Why doesn't MATLAB Compiler generate C or C++ code
that we can modify like previous versions did?" there are a number of
reasons that I don't want to get into (and I'm not sure I am allowed to get
into.)

If you want to get technical, EACH AND EVERY single enhancement we make to
our products and ALMOST EVERY single bug fix we make are incompatibilities.
If we never wanted to introduce any incompatibilties, we could say "Okay,
our products are done", much like Donald Knuth has requested that TeX and
METAFONT remain unchanged after his (hopefully far in the future) death:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX

But I'd like to think that our users would prefer that we try to make our
products better and fix bugs and introduce new features they request.
[Since I _know_ you're going to ask how the newer versions of MATLAB
Compiler are better than the older versions: the newer versions can, among
other things, compile MATLAB classes -- the older versions could not do so.
I'm almost certain that was THE #1 requested feature for the Compiler (by a
LARGE margin) before we introduced that capability in MATLAB Compiler 4.0.]

--
Steve Lord
slord@mathworks.com
comp.soft-sys.matlab (CSSM) FAQ: http://matlabwiki.mathworks.com/MATLAB_FAQ
To contact Technical Support use the Contact Us link on
http://www.mathworks.com

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Jan Simon

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 14:54:05

Message: 27 of 50

Dear Honglei!

> We take backwards compatibility very seriously.

I have the impression, that TMW takes backward(s?) compatibility seriously -- without "very".
Most of all I miss a list of changes in the functions. E.g. if some asks in the newgroup for the FIND command and uses Matlab 2006b, I cannot find a message in my 2009a doc of FIND, when the 'first'/'last' option has been added. I cannot find the doc of 2006b in the net, therefore I have to search in all List-Of-Changes pages from 2007a to 2009a, if I want to find the version including the enhanced FIND.

The new list of open/solved bugs is a very good step in the right direction. A tiny history including new/changed/lost features and open/solved bugs in each M-file would be more user-friendly. "Very" serious backward(s?) compatibilty demands for a full documentation of changes reachable by users.

Nevertheless, it is easier to port Matlab source from Matlab 4.2c to 2010a than a function calling the API of Windows 3.1 to Windows 7. Another example: Try to port source code from K&R-C to C89 to C90 to C95 to C99. An exception is the Mex-API, which has been subject to strange changes in the past (mxCreateScalarDouble -> mxCreateDoubleScalar ?!), but since Matlab 6.5 this API is very stable also.

I think, TMW can be proud of the reached status of backward compatibility, and could be encouraged to improve it until the degree of perfection is reached to become the "ultimate computing environment" and claim to have an "outstanding service to our customers".

Kind regards, Jan

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 15:38:04

Message: 28 of 50

> Good night also to you, sleep well, keeping a part of the TMW mission in your heart: "Our goal is to change the world (...)" Not kidding, see
> http://www.mathworks.com/company/aboutus/mission_values/mission.html

Hey everybody,

maybe I was misunderstood in my view of the TMW mission. Pls let me say *I believe* that the piece of text *really* mirrors what TMW staff believes and it should be taken seriously. Also, I have no problem with believing that "software developers and engineers at TMW (...) are trying to get the product quality and usefulness up to edge of own possibilities" and something similar could be said on all individual employees.

But: How does this organization really work, in what way does it communicates with customers, and more? For goods and services providers there is nothing to compare a continuous lively dialog. Is there any such dialog? If one reads the above posts, there are ML users who raise certain issues. Do the TMW guys seem to appreciate the legimitate feedback? A product or service is good if and only if it is good for customers. Is ML good? As for me I can say that I really like ML. But one person does not make the statistically relevant sample to judge that question. So, who knows? And that is what I was talking about - keeping in touch with ***a broad base of ML users*** of different types.

But to live up this dialog, I sent link to this thread to the following e-mail:
* jlittle@mathworks.com *

There came no failure delivery report so far. Maybe you know that it is principally possible to contact Stephen Wolfram. http://www.stephenwolfram.com/
Let's see what it gives :OP

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Walter Roberson

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 16:33:17

Message: 29 of 50

Jan Simon wrote:

> The new list of open/solved bugs is a very good step in the right
> direction. A tiny history including new/changed/lost features and
> open/solved bugs in each M-file would be more user-friendly. "Very"
> serious backward(s?) compatibilty demands for a full documentation of
> changes reachable by users.

I would also recommend that the documentation for each command include an
indication of when it was introduced, and when new option are introduced, that
the release for them be documented as well. I would recommend that this be
done for each command, not just new commands.

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Steve Eddins

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 16:35:24

Message: 30 of 50

On 6/11/2010 10:54 AM, Jan Simon wrote:
> Dear Honglei!
>
>> We take backwards compatibility very seriously.
>
> I have the impression, that TMW takes backward(s?) compatibility
> seriously -- without "very".
> Most of all I miss a list of changes in the functions. E.g. if some asks
> in the newgroup for the FIND command and uses Matlab 2006b, I cannot
> find a message in my 2009a doc of FIND, when the 'first'/'last' option
> has been added. I cannot find the doc of 2006b in the net, therefore I
> have to search in all List-Of-Changes pages from 2007a to 2009a, if I
> want to find the version including the enhanced FIND.

Jan, I'm personally very interested in this comment and I want to
respond to it. But I'll preface my response by saying first that we
hate, Hate, HATE to talk publicly about anything that's not already
completely finished and released. That said, I'll tell you that user
feedback in recent years has been loud and clear on this point. We are
seriously looking into it.

> [snip]
>
> Nevertheless, it is easier to port Matlab source from Matlab 4.2c to
> 2010a than a function calling the API of Windows 3.1 to Windows 7.
> Another example: Try to port source code from K&R-C to C89 to C90 to C95
> to C99.
 >
 > [snip]

Thanks for making this point. In discussions like this, many folks seem
to assume that languages such as C or C++ are more stable than they
actually are. But even within the existing version of C++ standard,
just upgrading our C++ compilers to the latest vendor release always
causes us a lot of headaches in our product builds. (Don't get me wrong
- I'm not trying to make excuses for when we cause similar headaches for
our own customers. I'm just trying to clarify the "compared to what"
question.)

> I think, TMW can be proud of the reached status of backward
> compatibility, and could be encouraged to improve it until the degree of
> perfection is reached to become the "ultimate computing environment" and
> claim to have an "outstanding service to our customers".

My perception of the attitude within development is this: We know that
we have improved the way we approach compatibility issues, but we also
know that there's still a lot more that we should do.

Thanks for your thoughts,

---
Steve Eddins
http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Jan Simon

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 21:00:24

Message: 31 of 50

Dear Steve!

> But I'll preface my response by saying first that we
> hate, Hate, HATE to talk publicly about anything that's not already
> completely finished and released. That said, I'll tell you that user
> feedback in recent years has been loud and clear on this point. We are
> seriously looking into it.

"hate, Hate, HATE"?? Where do these strong emotions come from?

Getting feed*back* only after new features are released does not allow to use the strong power of a feed*forward* control. How do TMW determine the needs of the users, if they/you avoid discussing about not finished tools?

Kind regards, Jan

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 21:44:04

Message: 32 of 50

>That said, I'll tell you that user feedback in recent years has been loud and clear on this point. We are seriously looking into it.

As Steve Eddins describes it, it seems that in reality at TMW they 'd receive a mass of feedback from a broad audience of ML users. As for myself, I have not encountered a standardized possibility (a poll, questionnaire or similar) to discuss my experience with ML and these websites. I know that I can make an e-mail to one of the TMW contacts or write to this newsreader, but that is not standardized communication. For instance I'd like to be asked about help documentation and in particular, on these websites. Does anybody know such possibility?

BTW: I discovered happy company to have a PR dept 3 (!!!) clicks from main site:
http://www.mathworks.in/company/pressroom/contact.html
Jack Little has last posted to the newsreader >10y ago:
http://www.mathworks.de/matlabcentral/newsreader/author/245

What are your guesses, Folks, how many legitimate posts will need to be added to this thread until he 'd respond? Hey, just pls FEED IN more ideas on what we could undertake.

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Jan Simon

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 22:04:04

Message: 33 of 50

Dear Sscnekro,

> Jack Little has last posted to the newsreader >10y ago:
> http://www.mathworks.de/matlabcentral/newsreader/author/245

Sorry, I missed something: Why do you try to contact Jack Little?

Jan

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Wayne King

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 22:22:04

Message: 34 of 50

"sscnekro " <stiahni.mail@zoznam.sk> wrote in message <huuan4$l3o$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> >That said, I'll tell you that user feedback in recent years has been loud and clear on this point. We are seriously looking into it.
>
> As Steve Eddins describes it, it seems that in reality at TMW they 'd receive a mass of feedback from a broad audience of ML users. As for myself, I have not encountered a standardized possibility (a poll, questionnaire or similar) to discuss my experience with ML and these websites. I know that I can make an e-mail to one of the TMW contacts or write to this newsreader, but that is not standardized communication. For instance I'd like to be asked about help documentation and in particular, on these websites. Does anybody know such possibility?
>
> BTW: I discovered happy company to have a PR dept 3 (!!!) clicks from main site:
> http://www.mathworks.in/company/pressroom/contact.html
> Jack Little has last posted to the newsreader >10y ago:
> http://www.mathworks.de/matlabcentral/newsreader/author/245
>
> What are your guesses, Folks, how many legitimate posts will need to be added to this thread until he 'd respond? Hey, just pls FEED IN more ideas on what we could undertake.


Hi Sscnerko,

In terms of providing feedback about the documentation, if you look at the bottom of each page, there is a question: "Was this topic helpful?" If you click No and fill out the comment sheet with your email, MW is good about getting in contact with you. Also, if are having difficulty with a particular application, technical support is also conscientious about attempting to solve your problem.

Wayne

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 22:27:05

Message: 35 of 50

> Sorry, I missed something: Why do you try to contact Jack Little?

Why not, on earth? Anybody can do. In this event, it's a trial *for fun* to see what it gives. His reaction or lack of reaction will say again something on TMW.

You may take it also that way: Suppose you 'd be the founder, with the vison-mission-ambition we already know. Would there be a possibility to contact you?

Obviously, Jan, my background and moves are simply different from yours, that's what I am trying to ask you kindly to get used to. The great thing is that at the newsreader people with different backgrounds can gather together and exchange ideas. Open up yourself ;O)

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 23:02:05

Message: 36 of 50

> if you look at the bottom of each page, there is a question: "Was this topic helpful?"

Thanks, Wayne. Maybe they do not expect under individual pages feedback to the overall hlp doc (as e.g. strengthening the links and comparisons between various functions), but they will certainly not mind if the remarks are more general.

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Oleg Komarov

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 23:09:04

Message: 37 of 50

I just think that TMW, being the company it is, should really think more about stability than about toolbox multiplication.
All their policies indicate that they have a really strong commercial dep., maybe too strong IMO.

I won't go into details but I do believe in what I said and don't get me wrong, I really appreciate all the efforts of the TMW staff.

Oleg

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 23:23:06

Message: 38 of 50

> a really strong commercial dep., maybe too strong IMO.

Agree. You really made the point, Oleg. If they wanted to do things differently, they would do things differently. My first post to join this thread was motivated precisely byt this point - I tried to show Bruno and others that in their turn, as customers - - how is it called, "sie sollen es ihnen nicht gefallen lassen".

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Jan Simon

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 23:26:05

Message: 39 of 50

Dear Sscnekro,

> > Sorry, I missed something: Why do you try to contact Jack Little?

> Why not, on earth? Anybody can do. In this event, it's a trial *for fun* to see what it gives. His reaction or lack of reaction will say again something on TMW.
> You may take it also that way: Suppose you 'd be the founder, with the vison-mission-ambition we already know. Would there be a possibility to contact you?

2nd guideline on the top of this form for posting:
"Specific questions elicit the best response from this unmoderated newsgroup."
Do you have a specific question to Jack?

Do I understand correctly, that you want to ask if TMW uses standardized feedback mechanisms? If so, it might be possible that Jack does not answer, because he has another job in this big company.
BTW.: @Steve: thanks for joining this thread.

@Bruno: Sorry that SGOLAYFILT went out of view. Actually, I just wanted to mention that I've added support for SINGLE data in fSGolayFilt. Casting input and output of SGOLAYFILT is not efficient. fSGolayFilt accumulates the dot products in a DOUBLE to encrease accuracy. Perhaps this is of any need for you.

Jan

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: dpb

Date: 11 Jun, 2010 23:32:05

Message: 40 of 50

Steve Eddins wrote:
> On 6/11/2010 9:35 AM, dpb wrote:
...
>> A recasting of the ideas in somewhat more modest terms I could
>> stomach...that wording seems "over the top".
...
> I understand your reaction. I've also been skeptical of some corporate
> mission statements. But I can connect every phrase of the technology,
> business, human, and social mission statements to concrete and
> long-lasting attitudes, activities, and practices in place at MathWorks.
> The joy and reward of striving to achieve these challenging ideals is
> what keeps me coming to work.
...

On reflection I have to admit much of my antipathy stems from the point
some years ago when I last tried to upgrade on the eve of seeing
retirement looming but thinking it would be good to have a more current
version of ML if wanted to continue to participate at cssm even though
could foresee no financial benefits accruing therefrom.

To cut to the chase, I found little to reflect the "human or social
mission" in the response but a lot of business. Now, I fully understand
it takes money to run a company and I'm not begrudging TMW its success
but they didn't endear themselves to me or strike me as being interested
in being even the least bit altruistic.

--

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Joaquim Luis

Date: 12 Jun, 2010 00:39:04

Message: 41 of 50

"Steven Lord" <slord@mathworks.com> wrote in message <hutghu$6rt$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
>
> "Joaquim Luis" <jluis@--ualg--.pt> wrote in message
> news:hurt6g$eu3$1@fred.mathworks.com...
> > Honglei Chen <Honglei.Chen@mathworks.com> wrote in message
> > <hq2pim$599$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> >> Hi Bruno,
> >>
> >> We take backwards compatibility very seriously.
> >
> > You do???
> > So may I ask, where is the Maltab compiler right now?
>
> Right here.
>
> http://www.mathworks.com/products/compiler/
>
> If you intended to ask "Why doesn't MATLAB Compiler generate C or C++ code
> that we can modify like previous versions did?" there are a number of
> reasons that I don't want to get into (and I'm not sure I am allowed to get
> into.)
>
> If you want to get technical, EACH AND EVERY single enhancement we make to
> our products and ALMOST EVERY single bug fix we make are incompatibilities.
> If we never wanted to introduce any incompatibilties, we could say "Okay,
> our products are done", much like Donald Knuth has requested that TeX and
> METAFONT remain unchanged after his (hopefully far in the future) death:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TeX
>
> But I'd like to think that our users would prefer that we try to make our
> products better and fix bugs and introduce new features they request.



> [Since I _know_ you're going to ask how the newer versions of MATLAB
> Compiler are better than the older versions: the newer versions can, among
> other things, compile MATLAB classes -- the older versions could not do so.
> I'm almost certain that was THE #1 requested feature for the Compiler (by a
> LARGE margin) before we introduced that capability in MATLAB Compiler 4.0.]

No, I did not intend to ask that because I know those arguments for long time and, in my view, I don't accept them as valid.
Why so?
Because they are not answers to the question.
The replacement product that abusively took the the name of "compiler" certainly has its own merits. No dispute on that. But it is NOT A COMPILER ans it's not a replacement of the compiler. With the compiler, and all its limitations that could have been reduced with continuous support, one could build reasonable sized executables that loaded in 1 second. With the encrypter, well be very patience with those couple hundred Mb one need to ship on even for a very small compiled code, which is not compatible between releases, etc ...

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Bruno Luong

Date: 12 Jun, 2010 09:13:05

Message: 42 of 50

"Jan Simon" <matlab.THIS_YEAR@nMINUSsimon.de> wrote in message <huugmd$acn$1@fred.mathworks.com>...

>
> @Bruno: Sorry that SGOLAYFILT went out of view. Actually, I just wanted to mention that I've added support for SINGLE data in fSGolayFilt. Casting input and output of SGOLAYFILT is not efficient. fSGolayFilt accumulates the dot products in a DOUBLE to encrease accuracy. Perhaps this is of any need for you.

I have yet to test your fSGolayFilt Jan. I must first to make sure the stability before I can decide to replace Matlab SGOLAYFILT.

It is very easy to make a work around for Matlab SGOLAYFILT, edit the mfile

1. Comment out line 51-55

% try
% chkinputdatatype(x,k,F,W,DIM);
% catch ME
% throwAsCaller(ME);
% end

2. Before Line 84 add the cast of the Filter definition:

B = feval(class(x),B);
ytemp = filter(B((F-1)./2+1,:),1,x);

Now the function can work on DOUBLE and SINGLE without casting the big array. That's a much better workaround than casting the large data array "x" single to 'double" as Honglei Chen has suggested. It is quite understandable that Mathworks would prefer to give a workaround on the user side rather than modifying what's considered as "completely finished and released" - for the sake of quoting Steve Eddins words.

What frustrate me is Mathwork in one hand they advertises the extension of the support of SINGLE in signal processing toolbox, and on the other hand restrict the flexibility of some code by brute type-checking. This seems to me represents a not well coordinated development plan. The issue here seems to be an isolate case, and I hope it is.

Bruno

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 12 Jun, 2010 11:59:05

Message: 43 of 50

> Do you have a specific question to Jack? Do I understand correctly, that you want to ask if TMW uses standardized feedback mechanisms? If so, it might be possible that Jack does not answer, because he has another job in this big company.

Never mind, Jan, you will probably never understand this sort of different mentality than is yours. In your micro-view, things have got to be as they are, bcs somebody else said it has got to be like that. You might just learn that there are different micro-views. You may take this as testing, for fun, how much is enough to be interesting. $*10^6? $*10^10? More? You may test the hypothesis that posters to raise technical issues under this thread are crumbs that is not interesting to collect. Maybe the case of a social networking site is familiar to you, telling people that things have got to be as they are. At a point >3*10^4 people left the network they admitted that things yet might have got to be a bit different. This could hardly happen here as you seem to experience self-reproaches and uselesness from any bit of questions that enter your thoughts. Now, pssssst, let us not disturb
this hard work for this big company. (Don't understand me wrongly, I am not disparaging the achievments and success of TMW.)

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 12 Jun, 2010 12:16:05

Message: 44 of 50

> @ Jan

Yet putting it differenty: This thread is a sort of small mirror to both sides. Not just TMW as you wrongly think. It too is a mirror for some of their customers. Bizz is always two or more sided. The expansion of TMW is as legitimate as any of the opinions, even if frustration, of their bizz partners.

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Steve Eddins

Date: 14 Jun, 2010 11:11:59

Message: 45 of 50

On 6/11/2010 5:00 PM, Jan Simon wrote:
> Dear Steve!
>
>> But I'll preface my response by saying first that we hate, Hate, HATE
>> to talk publicly about anything that's not already completely finished
>> and released. That said, I'll tell you that user feedback in recent
>> years has been loud and clear on this point. We are seriously looking
>> into it.
>
> "hate, Hate, HATE"?? Where do these strong emotions come from?

Until features are actually released we don't actually know for sure
that they will be released or when. Features can be (and often are)
pulled from a given release for a variety of reasons. We don't like to
be in a position of announcing that something new will be coming and
then failing to meet expectations. Companies that do this get a
reputation for "vaporware."

> Getting feed*back* only after new features are released does not allow
> to use the strong power of a feed*forward* control. How do TMW determine
> the needs of the users, if they/you avoid discussing about not finished
> tools?

I didn't say that we don't gather feedback from users. There are many
ways that we actively solicit and incorporate feedback from users in our
development process. We just don't do this in a public fashion.

---
Steve Eddins
http://blogs.mathworks.com/steve/

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Jan Simon

Date: 14 Jun, 2010 16:10:20

Message: 46 of 50

Dear Steve!

> Steve wrote:
> Until features are actually released we don't actually know for sure
> that they will be released or when. [...]. We don't like to
> be in a position of announcing that something new will be coming and
> then failing to meet expectations.

> Bruno wrote:
> What frustrate me is Mathwork in one hand they advertises the extension
> of the support of SINGLE in signal processing toolbox, and on the other
> hand restrict the flexibility of some code by brute type-checking.

I agree that TMW is in general not a vaporware producer. Bruno found a single, small, but for his work frustrating detail, where the announcement and the delivered product are not in harmony.

> > How do TMW determine the needs of the users, if they/you avoid
> > discussing about not finished tools?
>
> I didn't say that we don't gather feedback from users. There are many
> ways that we actively solicit and incorporate feedback from users in our
> development process. We just don't do this in a public fashion.

If I understand correctly, it is my turn to ask a person working for TMW more privately, e.g. if I meet my local distributor on a conference. The preference of person-to-person communication seems to still one of my favourite micro-views.

Thanks, looking forward to 2010b, Jan

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Steven Lord

Date: 14 Jun, 2010 17:25:35

Message: 47 of 50


"sscnekro " <stiahni.mail@zoznam.sk> wrote in message
news:huuf9d$dve$1@fred.mathworks.com...
>> if you look at the bottom of each page, there is a question: "Was this
>> topic helpful?"
>
> Thanks, Wayne. Maybe they do not expect under individual pages feedback to
> the overall hlp doc (as e.g. strengthening the links and comparisons
> between various functions), but they will certainly not mind if the
> remarks are more general.

If you have more general comments on the documentation as a whole rather
than comments on specific documentation pages, the best way to get that
feedback in to the documentation staff is via Technical Support, which you
can contact using the Contact Us link at the top of
http://www.mathworks.com. [I noticed a short time ago that newer people in
the newsgroup tended not to know how to contact Support, which is why I
added the instructions in my signature.]

--
Steve Lord
slord@mathworks.com
comp.soft-sys.matlab (CSSM) FAQ: http://matlabwiki.mathworks.com/MATLAB_FAQ
To contact Technical Support use the Contact Us link on
http://www.mathworks.com

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: Jan Simon

Date: 14 Jun, 2010 18:39:05

Message: 48 of 50

Dear Sscnekro!

> > Do you have a specific question to Jack?

> Never mind, Jan, you will probably never understand this sort of different mentality than is yours.

I assume, you are right. I've expected, that you take part in this discussion to publish your message. If mentality is more important, asking repeatedly for your message is obviously the wrong approach.

Kind regards and have a nice week, Jan

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: sscnekro

Date: 14 Jun, 2010 20:13:06

Message: 49 of 50

> If mentality is more important

Jan, I am sorry, I do not quite understand. I only can say that I *do* respect you, your values, your work, etc, etc, and I really feel helpless facing this sort of misunderstanding. Good week also for you.

Subject: sgolayfilt no longer support SINGLE

From: us

Date: 15 Jun, 2010 00:30:33

Message: 50 of 50

"sscnekro " <stiahni.mail@zoznam.sk> wrote in message <hv62gi$coc$1@fred.mathworks.com>...
> > If mentality is more important
>
> Jan, I am sorry, I do not quite understand. I only can say that I *do* respect you, your values, your work, etc, etc, and I really feel helpless facing this sort of misunderstanding. Good week also for you.

with these very words of wisdom, let's conclude this rather tedious thread of non-ML-syntax related philosophy and go on with CSSMers ML-lifes...

us

Tags for this Thread

What are tags?

A tag is like a keyword or category label associated with each thread. Tags make it easier for you to find threads of interest.

Anyone can tag a thread. Tags are public and visible to everyone.

Contact us