## Help get Octave developed for Android! (like MATLAB, but free)

May 13th, 2012

The MATLAB language has become ubiquitous in many fields of applied mathematics such as linear algebra, differential equations, control systems and signal processing among many others.  MATLAB is a great tool but it also costs a lot!  If you are not a student then MATLAB is a very expensive piece of software.  For example, my own academic licensed copy with just 4 toolboxes cost more than the rather high powered laptop I use it on.  If I left academia then there would be no chance of me owning a copy unless I found an employer willing to stump up the cash for a commercial license.  Commercial licenses cost a LOT more than academic licenses.

Octave – The free alternative

The good news is that there is a free alternative to MATLAB in the form of Octave.  Octave attempts to be source compatible with MATLAB which means that, in many cases, your MATLAB code will run as-is on Octave.  Many of the undergraduate courses taught at my university (The University of Manchester) could be taught using Octave with little or no modification and I imagine that this would be the case elsewhere.  One area where Octave falls down is in the provision of toolboxes but this is improving thanks to the Octave-Forge project.

Addi – The beginnings of MATLAB/Octave on Android

As Dylan said The Times They Are a-Changin’ and there is an ever-increasing segment of world-society that are simply skipping over the PC and going straight to mobile devices for their computing needs.  It is possible to get your hands on a functional Android mobile phone or tablet for significantly less than the cost of a PC.   These cheap mobile devices may be a lot less powerful than even the cheapest of PCs but they are powerful enough for many purposes and are perfectly capable of outgunning Cray supercomputers from the past.

There is, however, no MATLAB for Android devices.  The best we have right now is in the form of Addi, a free Android app that makes use of JMathLib to provide a very scaled-back MATLAB-like experience.  Addi is the work of Corbin Champion, an android developer from Portland in the US, and he has much bigger plans for the future.

Full Octave/GNUPlot on Android with no caveats

Corbin is working on a full Octave and GNUPlot* port for Android.  He has already included a proof of concept in the latest release of Addi which includes an experimental Octave interpreter.  To go from this proof of concept to a fully developed Android port, however, is going to take a lot of work.  Corbin is up to the task but he would like our help.

[* – GNUPLot is used as the plotting engine for Octave and includes support for advanced 3D graphics]

Donate as little as $1 to help make this project possible Corbin has launched a Kickstarter project in order to try to obtain funding for this project. He freely admits that he’ll do the work whether or not it gets funded but will be able to devote much more of his time to the project if the funding request is successful. After all, we all need to eat, even great sotware developers. Although I have never met him, I believe in Corbin and strongly believe that he will deliver on his promise. So much so that I have pledged$100 to the project out of my own pocket.

If, like me, you want to see a well-developed and supported version of Octave on Android then watch the video below and then head over to Corbin’s kickstarter page to get the full details of his proposal.  The minimum donation is only \$1 and your money will only be taken if the full funding requirement is met.

Update (16th May 2012): The project (and this post) made it to Slashdot :)

## Experience and Good Taste in Software/Systems Design

May 10th, 2012

A guest post by Ian Cottam (@iandavidcottam).

I have been a programmer for 40 years this month. I thought I would write a short essay on things I experienced over that time that went into the design of a relatively recent, small program: DropAndCompute. (The purpose and general evolution of that program were described in a blog entry here. Please just watch the video there if you are new to DropAndCompute.)

Once I had the idea for DropAndCompute –inspired equally by the complexity of Condor and the simplicity of Dropbox — I coded and tested it in about two days. (Typically, one bug lasted until it had a real user, but it was no big deal.) My colleague, Mark Whidby, later re-factored/re-coded it to better scale as it grew in popularity here at The University of Manchester. I expect Mark spent about two days on it too. The user interface and basic design did not change. (As the evolution blog discusses, we eventually made the use of Dropbox optional, but that does not detract from this tale.)

Physically dropping programs and their data:
In the early to mid 1970s as well as doing my own programming work I helped scientists in Liverpool to run their code. One approach we used to make them faster was to drop the deck of cards into the input well of a card reader which was remotely connected to the regional supercomputer centre at Manchester. (I never knew what the communication mechanism was – probably a wet string given the technology of the time.) A nearby line printer was similarly connected and our results could be picked up, usually the next day. DropAndCompute is a 21st century version of this activity, without the leg work and humping of large boxes of cards about.

That this approach was worth the effort was made obvious with one of the first card decks I ever submitted. We had been running the code on an ICL 1903A computer in Liverpool; Manchester had a CDC 6600 (hopefully my memory has not let me down – it did become a CDC 7600 at some stage). Running the code locally in Liverpool, with typical data, took around 55 CPU minutes. Dropping it into that card reader so that it automatically ran in Manchester resulted in the jaw dropping time of 4 CPU seconds. (I still had to wait overnight to pick up the results, something that resonates with today’s DropAndCompute users and Manchester’s Condor Pool, which is only large and powerful overnight.)

Capabilities:
Later, but still in the mid 1970s, I worked for Plessey on their System 250 high-reliability, multiprocessor system. It was the first commercial example of a capability architecture. With such there is no supervisor state or privileged code rings or similar. If you held the capability to do something (e.g. read, write or enter another code context) you could do it. If you didn’t hold the appropriate capability, you could not. The only tiny section of code in the System 250 that was special was where capabilities were generated. No one else could make them.

The server side of DropAndCompute generates capabilities to the user client side. They are implemented as zero length files whose information content is just in their names. For job 3159, you get 3159.kill, 3159.vacate and 3159.debug generated*. By dragging and dropping one or more of these zero length files (capabilities) onto the dropbox the remote lower level Condor command code is automatically executed. [* You could try to make your own capability, such as 9513.kill, but it won’t work.]

UNIX and Shell Glue Code:
My initial exposure to the UNIX tools philosophy in the late 1970s profoundly influenced me (and still does). In essence, it says that one should build new software by inventing ‘glue’ to stick existing components together. The UNIX Shell is often the language of choice for this, and was for me. DropAndCompute is a good example of where a little bit of glue produced a hopefully impressive synergy.

The Internet not The Web:
DropAndCompute uses the Internet (clearly). It is not a Web application. I only mention this as some younger programmers, who have grown up with the Web always being there, seem to think the best/only architecture to use for a software system design is one implemented through a web browser using web services. I am grateful to be able to remember pre-Web days, as much as I love what Tim Berners-Lee created for us.

Client-Server:
I’m not sure when I first became aware of client-server architecture. I know a famous computer scientist (the late David Wheeler*) once described it as simply the obvious way to implement software systems. For my part, I’m a believer in the less code the client side (user) needs to install the better (less to go wrong on strange environments one has no control over). In the case of DropAndCompute if the user had Dropbox, it was nothing to install, and just downloading Dropbox if they didn’t.
[* As well as being a co-inventer of the subroutine, David Wheeler led the team that designed  the first operational capability-based computer: the Cambridge University CAP.]

Rosetta – Software as Magic:
Around a decade ago I worked for Transitive, a University of Manchester spin-out, and the company that produced Rosetta for Apple. With apologies to Arthur C Clarke: all great software appears to be magic to the user. The simpler the user interface, often the more complex the underlying system is to implement the magic. This is true, for example, for Apple iOS and OS X and for Dropbox (simpler, and yet I would bet that it is internally more complex, than its many competitors). One small part of OS X I helped with is Rosetta (or was, as Apple dropped it from the Lion 10.7 release of OS X). Rosetta dynamically (i.e. on-the-fly) translates PowerPC applications into Intel x86 code. There is no noticeable user interface: you double click your desired application, like any other, and, if needed, Rosetta is invoked to do its job in the background.

I have read many interesting web based discussions about Rosetta, several say, or imply, that it is a relatively simple piece of software: nothing could be further from the truth. It’s likely still a commercial secret how it works, but if it were simple, Apple’s transition to Intel would likely have been a disaster. It took a lot of smart people a long time to make the magic appear that simple.

I tried to keep DropAndCompute’s interface to the user as simple as possible, even where it added some complexity to its implementation. The National Grid Service in the UK did their own version of DropAndCompute, but, for my taste, added too many bells and whistles.

In Conclusion:
I hope this brief essay has been of interest and given some insight into how many years of software/system design experience come to be applied, even to small software systems, both consciously and subconsciously, and always, hopefully, with good taste. Hide complexity, keep it simple for the user, make them think it is simply magic!