>>> "EZ" == Eli Zaretskii writes: >> From: Uwe Brauer >> Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2021 09:32:10 +0100 >> >> 1. You can use your favorite editor for writing code. > The Matlab code editor is IMNSHO vastly superior, as it has code > completion, links to the Matlab documentation, etc. Emacs can at best > be a dumb text editor in this regard. I disagree with the use of the term vastly superior: we have code completion and you can use the matlab-shell to access the matlab documentation if you desire. I can also use my favorite editor as the swiss knife it is to write my code, I have tried the matlab editor in several occasion and find it superior. Here is a simple example. I have to check a lot of matlab files students present in an exam, so I have to read the code execute parts of it, write comments, use the spell checker, access my email etc etc in that process, and I don't have to use an external editor, that is different from emacs to do this. Heck even at mathworks there are, I think hundreds of users (or at least a dozen that use emacs for hacking and not the internal editor). It seems that you are acquainted with matlab, why don't you give matlab-mode a try? >> 2. Matlab-mode has a specific syntax support (like auctex does) that >> concerns keyword expansion, fontification and these sorts of things. > That could be easily merged into Octave mode, I think. the syntax is > similar, right? Yes, but since matlab contains more commands, it supports, logically, more >> 3. It has a function matlab-shell that does allow you execute >> code, either the whole part or just parts of it (you have a similar >> feature using org mode, the python kernel, and jupyter, however not >> all commands are supported using org mode, plotting for example is >> not, debugging neither). Again a similarity with auctex >> >> 4. You can debug code, although that worked better in the past, but it is still quite reasonable > Don't these work much better in the Matlab interpreter? Do you mean, does debugging work better using the internal editor. It depends, the pointer when moving is bit better explained, but I have tried both and I prefer emacs for debugging, but again that might be a personal preference. >> > I'm asking because I never understood why people who use Matlab would >> > like to use Emacs in conjunction with Matlab, since the Matlab >> > interactive mode provides so many features that are practically >> > necessary for any reasonable use of Matlab. So what can Emacs >> > possibly add to that? >> >> I am not sure what you mean by interactive mode here? > Where you get the ">>" prompt and can examine data, run code > fragments, etc. The REPL. But this is not an editor, I don't understand you. I am given a single matlab file what I need to examine, you want to do this from the command line? >> If this is the case, then, you cannot debug, and you cannot execute >> code from emacs, it is more of a one way thing. > Given the above, I still don't understand why you'd want to have Emacs > support for it. Why not use the Matlab facilities, which AFAIK are > significantly more powerful and flexible than anything Emacs can > reasonably provide? All I can say is, I have to use matlab more than 15 years, and I have tried it both ways, I much prefer emacs, it is more, when I am forced to use Windows (no surprise my university uses MS windows for their PC, than I am much slower in debugging and checking students code, the emacs matlab shell does not work in MS Windows, only in GNU/Linux and MacOs, most likely in BSD as well)