Closed gdalle closed 1 year ago
I added a chapter on it in the paper draft (joss branch). it reads:
Comparison with other packages
MacroModelling.jl
differentiates itself among macroeconomic modelling packages by offering a unique blend of capabilities and conveniences, such as automatic declaration of variables and parameters, automatic differentiation with respect to parameters, and support for perturbation solution orders up to 3. While it operates within the Julia environment, it presents an alternative to the MATLAB-dominated field, which includes dynare, RISE, Taylor Projection, NBTOOLBOX, and IRIS, the latter two being capable of providing only 1st order perturbation solutions.Other Julia-based packages such as DSGE.jl, StateSpaceEcon.jl, SolveDSGE.jl, and DifferentiableStateSpaceModels.jl have similar functionalities to
MacroModelling.jl
, but they are not as general and convenience focused as the MATLAB packages andMacroModelling.jl
. Furthermore, they do not possess the unique feature set ofMacroModelling.jl
regarding variable declaration and automatic differentiation. Notably, the Python-based dolo.py offers global solutions, but does not include estimation and balanced growth path features which are available inMacroModelling.jl
.
MacroModelling.jl
stands out as one of the few packages that can solve non-stochastic steady states symbolically, a feature shared only with gEcon, an R-based package. Furthermore, unlike many of its competitors, the domain specific model language ofMacroModelling.jl
is integrated into the Julia language, which makes for covenient reading and coding, with the help of Julia macros.
Furthermore, I also added the comparison table to the docs.
This is a good addition!
they are not as general and convenience focused as the MATLAB packages and MacroModelling.jl
This particular claim could use a stronger / more precise justification
Also, including this comparison and fleshing out the summary (see #36) means the "statement of need" has become a bit redundant, perhaps it would be best to pour its non-duplicated contents into the other two sections
added more details on convenience and recycled statement of need
looks good to me
The paper claims that the software
However, a detailed comparison with related packages is only provided in the README. I think this comparison also belongs in the docs, and a synthetic version in the main paper.
When I'm lazy, I often copy
README.md
intodocs/src/index.md
so that I don't have to write the same content twice. The only thing that gets lost in the way are the edit links, but that can be fixed.https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/5598