Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision | |||
personal:blog:2017:0203_jump_for_gams_users [2023/12/22 11:37] antonello [Further help] COMPLETED UPDATING OF THE PAGE |
personal:blog:2017:0203_jump_for_gams_users [2023/12/22 11:39] (current) antonello [Further help] |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
You have plenty of development environment to choose from (e.g. Jupiter, Juno), a clear modern language, the possibility to interface your model with third party libraries.. all of this basically for free.\\ | You have plenty of development environment to choose from (e.g. Jupiter, Juno), a clear modern language, the possibility to interface your model with third party libraries.. all of this basically for free.\\ | ||
It is also, at least for my user case, much faster than GAMS. Aside the preparation of the model to pass to the solver, where it is roughly equivalent, in the solver execution I can benefit of having on my system a version of IPOPT compiled with the much more performing ma27 linear solver, while for GAMS I would have to rely on the embedded version that is compiled with the MUMPS linear solver. That's part of the flexibility you gain in using JuMP in place of GAMS. | It is also, at least for my user case, much faster than GAMS. Aside the preparation of the model to pass to the solver, where it is roughly equivalent, in the solver execution I can benefit of having on my system a version of IPOPT compiled with the much more performing ma27 linear solver, while for GAMS I would have to rely on the embedded version that is compiled with the MUMPS linear solver. That's part of the flexibility you gain in using JuMP in place of GAMS. | ||
- | That's said, for people that don't need such flexibility, | + | That's said, for people that don't need such flexibility, |