The problem with Octave seems to be that, even if you put in the time to dig, you eventually hit some insurmountable roadblock because there’s no library that does what you need, IMHO.
Surely people versed with it (or the developers) would be able to show how to work around its limitations vs. Matlab toolboxes’ über-completeness.
Call Python libraries if you must from within Octave. But show how to accomplish a popular application from beginning to the very end.
Octave has some volunteer hackers who poke at the code base for fun. I recall that about ten years ago development of Octave had a crisis -- the primary developer John Eaton lost his funding from the University of Wisconson. Many people who followed Octave feared the project would die. Fortunately, that did not happen, and I am not sure how the whole kerfluffle worked itself out. However, it illuminates the shaky foundations of the volunteer-project software development model (Octave) compared to having a cash fountain from real revenues (Matlab). The cash fountain means you can fund development of features desired by your users.
Take it easy, down voters: just pointing out a fact.