Notice: On April 23, 2014, Statalist moved from an email list to a forum, based at statalist.org.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

From |
Nick Cox <njcoxstata@gmail.com> |

To |
"statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu" <statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu> |

Subject |
Re: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion? |

Date |
Mon, 23 Jul 2012 22:44:58 +0100 |

Nick

I'm not quite sure how experience is relevant when comparing something simple like matrix multiplication across platforms. Presumably experienced users in Mata and inexperienced users in MATLAB would find the same discrepancies in runtime.On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>wrote:I am always happy to agree with the idea that one should seek thebest in everything.On axes to grind, or not: That part of the comment was certainlynot aimed at you, but just at any one who has axes to grind,including myself. In particular, there is certainly a sense inwhich I work for Stata, as an Editor of the Stata Journal. If Icompared Stata with something else on Statalist, and my commentsappeared subjective or biased by my experiences, it would beentirely fair comment to point out that I have Stata roles. This isall part of my main point, that we need to know what experienceslie behind comparisons to evaluate those comparisons.Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk Pradipto BanerjeeNick, that's true. But, if you allow me to add (as a Stata"beginner"): both Stata and MATLAB can be easily integrated toachieve the best of both, e.g. in Stata -winexec- or -shell- andvice versa in Matlab -system- command, and I don't see why not usethe best of both ... (really there is no "axe to grind" - I don'twork for either StataCorp or Mathworks).-----Original Message-----From: owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu [mailto:owner-statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu] On Behalf Of Nick CoxSent: Monday, July 23, 2012 11:29 AM To: 'statalist@hsphsun2.harvard.edu'Subject: RE: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrixinversion?Broad commentary on different software is kind of fun but I thinksome ground rules are needed if it is also to be considered serious.That is, what backgrounds do people bring to this discussion? I getthe impression that Pradipto is a beginning Stata programmer and anexperienced MATLAB (that's still its name) user-programmer and hisremarks are to be interpreted accordingly. It would be easiest ifthere were people who have spent approximately similar timeprogramming MATLAB and Stata, were equally competent in both andhad no axe to grind. Those people are likely to be thin on theground; that being so, comments are difficult to interpret withoutsome idea of people's backgrounds.Nick n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk Pradipto BanerjeeI had the same issue. I think different applications have theirpros and cons. Both Stata and Matlab have their places.Stata is great for data manipulation and data visualization,merging databases, or trying to quickly see whether a few variablesare related to others, carrying out variety of regressions bothacross time and cross-section, i.e. primarily to build insightsfrom a database without first building a whole set of tools arounda database.On the other hand, once all the insights are developed in Stata,Matlab is perhaps preferable to build the rest of the applicationbecause it is faster, has many use toolboxes like optimization,integrates well with the engineering & financial world (e.g.Bloomberg, lots of financial databases & APIs), programming is mucheasier, awesome editor and is very good as a single environment todevelop a complete package.

* * For searches and help try: * http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search * http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq * http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/

**Follow-Ups**:**RE: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?***From:*Pradipto Banerjee <pradipto.banerjee@adainvestments.com>

**References**:**st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?***From:*Patrick Roland <patrick.rolande@gmail.com>

**Re: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?***From:*"David M. Drukker" <ddrukker@stata.com>

**Re: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?***From:*Patrick Roland <patrick.rolande@gmail.com>

**Re: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?***From:*Richard Herron <richard.c.herron@gmail.com>

**Re: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?***From:*Patrick Roland <patrick.rolande@gmail.com>

**RE: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?***From:*Pradipto Banerjee <pradipto.banerjee@adainvestments.com>

**RE: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?***From:*Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**RE: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?***From:*Pradipto Banerjee <pradipto.banerjee@adainvestments.com>

**RE: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?***From:*Nick Cox <n.j.cox@durham.ac.uk>

**Re: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?***From:*Patrick Roland <patrick.rolande@gmail.com>

- Prev by Date:
**Re: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?** - Next by Date:
**RE: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?** - Previous by thread:
**Re: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?** - Next by thread:
**RE: st: Why is Mata much slower than MATLAB at matrix inversion?** - Index(es):