|
| Science Forum Index » Math - Symbolic Forum » A bit of statistics trivia for Maple and Mathematica... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Nasser M. Abbasi... |
 Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I did a count of the number of functions in Mathematica 7 the other day, and
I figured I should do one like this for Maple as well. So, here are some
stats, maybe some might find them interesting.
Mathematica 7:
============
The System (i.e kernel) contains 1,920 functions.
It comes with additional 35 standard packages that can be loaded using
Get[];
Total number of functions in the system and the packages combined is 2,561
Maple 12:
=======
System top level commands and what is called the standard libraries: 678
It comes with additional 116 packages that can be loaded using with();
Total number of functions in all of the above combined is 3,902
For the complete listing showing package and what functions in it in both
system are here
Maple 12
http://12000.org/my_notes/maple_functions/final.html
Mathematica 7
http://12000.org/my_notes/compare_mathematica/mma7_functions/process.html
I do not claim the above does not contain any errors. I am just a user.
May be we can get a count for some of the other CAS systems out there?
Yes, I know, counting number of functions can be misleading as an indication
of the functionality provided by the system. As one function can be
implemented to have many different options which ends up doing the work of
50 other smaller functions...but still, useful to get an idea about this.
Notice, this is just for functions that come with the system out of the box.
no third-party stuff.
--Nasser |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| TimDaly... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 19, 8:55 am, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n... at (no spam) 12000.org> wrote:
[quote]I did a count of the number of functions in Mathematica 7 the other day, and
I figured I should do one like this for Maple as well. So, here are some
stats, maybe some might find them interesting.
Mathematica 7:
===========> The System (i.e kernel) contains 1,920 functions.
It comes with additional 35 standard packages that can be loaded using
Get[];
Total number of functions in the system and the packages combined is 2,561
Maple 12:
======> System top level commands and what is called the standard libraries: 678
It comes with additional 116 packages that can be loaded using with();
Total number of functions in all of the above combined is 3,902
For the complete listing showing package and what functions in it in both
system are here
Maple 12http://12000.org/my_notes/maple_functions/final.html
Mathematica 7http://12000.org/my_notes/compare_mathematica/mma7_functions/process....
I do not claim the above does not contain any errors. I am just a user.
May be we can get a count for some of the other CAS systems out there?
Yes, I know, counting number of functions can be misleading as an indication
of the functionality provided by the system. As one function can be
implemented to have many different options which ends up doing the work of
50 other smaller functions...but still, useful to get an idea about this.
Notice, this is just for functions that come with the system out of the box.
no third-party stuff.
--Nasser
[/quote]
Well, the question is not well-formed in Axiom terms since names are
overloaded by inheritance. So + for Integers is not the same function
as + for Polynomials. However, a count of the user-exposed functions
available from the top level can be shown by the command
)d op
with no chosen operation. The raw counts are:
5434 Unique functions
3052 Unique function names (e.g. + Integer, + Poly) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Roman Pearce... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:55 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 19, 5:55 am, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n... at (no spam) 12000.org> wrote:
[quote]I did a count of the number of functions in Mathematica 7 the other day, and
I figured I should do one like this for Maple as well.
....
Yes, I know, counting number of functions can be misleading as an indication
of the functionality provided by the system. As one function can be
implemented to have many different options which ends up doing the work of
50 other smaller functions...but still, useful to get an idea about this.
[/quote]
My knowledge of both is limited, but Mathematica does seem to put a
lot of its core functionality into options. For example, the Groebner
Walk algorithm is an option to the GroebnerBasis command (not sure
about FGLM). Maple has this as well, but there are also separate
commands to run the FGLM or Groebner walk algorithms, assuming the
input is a Groebner basis. I prefer this approach, but the option
routine is not bad either because people complain all the time that
Maple has too many commands :)
What I would love to see is a side-by-side comparison of algorithms,
organized into different domains, with some kind of subjective
rankings for generality and speed. Call it "the world's longest
flamewar"  It would be useful and interesting though. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| TimDaly... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:06 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 19, 1:55 pm, Roman Pearce <rpear... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 19, 5:55 am, "Nasser M. Abbasi" <n... at (no spam) 12000.org> wrote:
I did a count of the number of functions in Mathematica 7 the other day, and
I figured I should do one like this for Maple as well.
...
Yes, I know, counting number of functions can be misleading as an indication
of the functionality provided by the system. As one function can be
implemented to have many different options which ends up doing the work of
50 other smaller functions...but still, useful to get an idea about this.
My knowledge of both is limited, but Mathematica does seem to put a
lot of its core functionality into options. For example, the Groebner
Walk algorithm is an option to the GroebnerBasis command (not sure
about FGLM). Maple has this as well, but there are also separate
commands to run the FGLM or Groebner walk algorithms, assuming the
input is a Groebner basis. I prefer this approach, but the option
routine is not bad either because people complain all the time that
Maple has too many commands :)
What I would love to see is a side-by-side comparison of algorithms,
organized into different domains, with some kind of subjective
rankings for generality and speed. Call it "the world's longest
flamewar" It would be useful and interesting though.
[/quote]
A side-by-side comparison of algorithms would be excellent.
Even a function-to-function rosetta-stone translation is great.
There are lots of fascinating things to be found.
I have compared the answers to integration for Axiom, Maple,
MMA, and Maxima on the issue of branch cuts. Curiously it
seems that Axiom and Maple make the same choice and
MMA and Maxima make the same choice, different from the
Axiom/Maple choice. Since the choice is somewhat arbitrary
it would be nice to have some flame in this area. In fact,
there seems to be no reason why this can't be a dynamic
choice.
Sage is claiming an effort to reimplement some of the
integration algorithms. I do not know in which camp they
will end up but hopefully it won't be a third camp.
How would such an effort be organized?
Tim |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dave... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Roman Pearce wrote:
[quote]What I would love to see is a side-by-side comparison of algorithms,
organized into different domains, with some kind of subjective
rankings for generality and speed. Call it "the world's longest
flamewar" It would be useful and interesting though.
[/quote]
Well, if you want a flame war, how about the popularity of Mathematica vs Sage,
based on the posting to the respective public forums?
http://alpha.sagenb.org/home/pub/3/
--
I respectfully request that this message is not archived by companies as
unscrupulous as 'Experts Exchange' . In case you are unaware,
'Experts Exchange' take questions posted on the web and try to find
idiots stupid enough to pay for the answers, which were posted freely
by others. They are leeches. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nasser M. Abbasi... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Roman Pearce" <rpearcea at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:de393bf9-cbb7-4138-bced-
"What I would love to see is a side-by-side comparison of algorithms,
organized into different domains, with some kind of subjective
rankings for generality and speed. Call it "the world's longest
flamewar" It would be useful and interesting though."
Nice that would be nice. May be some CAS expert can do this, over my head
myself as not my area, but I would think this is kind'a hard to do given
that both of the big players here (Maple and Mathematica) are closed
sources?
The best one can do is read the functions documentation and may be some bits
of things here and there to get some idea, but the details of the algorithms
inside the cover will always be hard to get to I would think.
Speaking of integration, it seems like the coming Mathematica release has
developed new algorithms for numerical integration:
"Oh, yes, another algorithm breakthrough area: NIntegrate. We've developed a
whole bunch of new algorithms for handling functions that oscillate."
reference: Wolfram presentation at the International Mathematica User
Conference 2009
http://blog.wolfram.com/2009/11/12/the-rd-pipeline-for-mathematica/#more-2172
Very interesting to view/read if you have not seen it yet.
--Nasser |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| David N. Williams... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:22 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
TimDaly wrote:
[quote][...]
I have compared the answers to integration for Axiom, Maple,
MMA, and Maxima on the issue of branch cuts. Curiously it
seems that Axiom and Maple make the same choice and
MMA and Maxima make the same choice, different from the
Axiom/Maple choice. Since the choice is somewhat arbitrary
it would be nice to have some flame in this area. In fact,
there seems to be no reason why this can't be a dynamic
choice.
[/quote]
I wonder which, if any of them, follow the OpenMath standard? I
don't know how well that has caught on, but there's example info
here:
Robert M. Corless, David J. Jeffrey, Stephen M. Watt, and James
H. Davenport, "'According to Abramowitz and Stegun' or arcoth
needn't be uncouth":
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/362001.362023
http://www.apmaths.uwo.ca/~djeffrey/Offprints/couth.pdf (preprint)
OpenMath home page:
http://www.openmath.org/index.html
OpenMath transcendental functions:
http://www.openmath.org/cocoon/openmath/cd/transc1.html
http://www.openmath.org/cocoon/openmath/cd/transc3.html
-- David |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nasser Abbasi... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 19, 6:23 pm, Dave <f... at (no spam) coo.com> wrote:
[quote]Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
Yes, I know, counting number of functions can be misleading as an indication
of the functionality provided by the system. As one function can be
implemented to have many different options which ends up doing the work of
50 other smaller functions...but still, useful to get an idea about this.
I suspect counting functions would be *very* misleading, since as you say, a
function can do a small task, or a huge one given tons of options.
[/quote]
Yes Dave. But it depends on the context, would you not agree?
Basic Mathematical functions for example can't really be combined into
a higher level function.
One would expect a CAS to contain for example, the basic trig
functions, sin, cos, tan, etc... and those can't be made into one
function which takes some option, as in
trig_function(method->sin, angle=...)
That would not work.
Same for the special functions. So a count is useful in this case
becuase one can see which system has more support for special
functions by counting.
For example Mathematica for Bessel has
BesselI, BesselJ, BesselJZero, BesselK, BesselY, BesselYZero,
SphericalBesselJ, SphericalBesselY
while maple has
BesselI, BesselJ, BesselJZeros, BesselK, BesselY, BesselYZeros
For Legendre, Mathematica has LegendreP, LegendreQ and Maple also has
the same 2 functions. So, by counting I see right away which system
has more support for special functions or if the support is the same
or not.
The point is, depending on the context, a count of functions can be
useful as in the above, but in another area it might not give an
indication of the functionality. Here is an example where counting is
misleading:
Take the numerical solution to an ODE.
Mathematica has NDSolve[] while Matlab for example has many functions
for numerical solution for an ode (ode23, ode45, ode113, ode15s,
ode23s, ode23t, ode23tb etc..) where the user needs to select the one
to use. And for a pde it even has a toolbox dedicated just for pde's.
While in Mathematica, pretty much all of this is done by just this one
overworked function NDSOlve[]. A super function. I happen to prefer in
this case the super function solution, and then use options to adjust
its behavior as it makes one more familiar with the API. Others might
prefer the Matlab approach.
So, in this case, function counting would not favor Mathematica
against Matlab even though the functionalities are pretty much the
same.
--Nasser |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Fateman... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 4:08 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
David N. Williams wrote:
....
[quote]
I wonder which, if any of them, follow the OpenMath standard? I
don't know how well that has caught on, but there's example info
here:
Robert M. Corless, David J. Jeffrey, Stephen M. Watt, and James
H. Davenport, "'According to Abramowitz and Stegun' or arcoth
needn't be uncouth":
http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/362001.362023
http://www.apmaths.uwo.ca/~djeffrey/Offprints/couth.pdf (preprint)
....[/quote]
I suspect the point of Corless et al above is that the OpenMath
documents do not provide a standard for branch cuts, but should. (I've
complained about related issues years ago. ... OpenMath originally
defined stuff like cosine by, essentially, "oh everyone knows what
cosine is". Apparently it hasn't gotten much better -- just waving a
hand in the direction of A&S.)
I see no special reason for a well-established system to change in order
to conform to the OpenMath "standard". The nice thing about standards is
that there are so many of them. Perhaps DLMF from NIST will eventually
appear.
The functionality for Maxima, incidentally, includes all the functions
in Common Lisp, which can be address by prepending a "?". There are
quite a few in ANSI Standard Common Lisp. Maybe something similar in
Reduce and Axiom. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dave... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
[quote]I did a count of the number of functions in Mathematica 7 the other day, and
I figured I should do one like this for Maple as well. So, here are some
stats, maybe some might find them interesting.
Mathematica 7:
============
The System (i.e kernel) contains 1,920 functions.
It comes with additional 35 standard packages that can be loaded using
Get[];
Total number of functions in the system and the packages combined is 2,561
Maple 12:
=======
System top level commands and what is called the standard libraries: 678
It comes with additional 116 packages that can be loaded using with();
Total number of functions in all of the above combined is 3,902
For the complete listing showing package and what functions in it in both
system are here
Maple 12
http://12000.org/my_notes/maple_functions/final.html
Mathematica 7
http://12000.org/my_notes/compare_mathematica/mma7_functions/process.html
I do not claim the above does not contain any errors. I am just a user.
May be we can get a count for some of the other CAS systems out there?
Yes, I know, counting number of functions can be misleading as an indication
of the functionality provided by the system. As one function can be
implemented to have many different options which ends up doing the work of
50 other smaller functions...but still, useful to get an idea about this.
[/quote]
I suspect counting functions would be *very* misleading, since as you say, a
function can do a small task, or a huge one given tons of options. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| AES... |
| Posted: Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
In article
<de393bf9-cbb7-4138-bced-80a35753264a at (no spam) b25g2000prb.googlegroups.com>,
Roman Pearce <rpearcea at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
What I would love to see is a side-by-side comparison of algorithms,
organized into different domains, with some kind of subjective
rankings for generality and speed. Call it "the world's longest
flamewar" It would be useful and interesting though.
[/quote]
But as I understand it, the posts would not be allowed to appear on
comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica . . .??? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dave... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:07 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nasser Abbasi wrote:
[quote]On Nov 19, 6:23 pm, Dave <f... at (no spam) coo.com> wrote:
Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
Yes, I know, counting number of functions can be misleading as an indication
of the functionality provided by the system. As one function can be
implemented to have many different options which ends up doing the work of
50 other smaller functions...but still, useful to get an idea about this.
I suspect counting functions would be *very* misleading, since as you say, a
function can do a small task, or a huge one given tons of options.
Yes Dave. But it depends on the context, would you not agree?
Basic Mathematical functions for example can't really be combined into
a higher level function.
One would expect a CAS to contain for example, the basic trig
functions, sin, cos, tan, etc... and those can't be made into one
function which takes some option, as in
trig_function(method->sin, angle=...)
That would not work.
Same for the special functions. So a count is useful in this case
becuase one can see which system has more support for special
functions by counting.
For example Mathematica for Bessel has
BesselI, BesselJ, BesselJZero, BesselK, BesselY, BesselYZero,
SphericalBesselJ, SphericalBesselY
while maple has
BesselI, BesselJ, BesselJZeros, BesselK, BesselY, BesselYZeros
For Legendre, Mathematica has LegendreP, LegendreQ and Maple also has
the same 2 functions. So, by counting I see right away which system
has more support for special functions or if the support is the same
or not.
The point is, depending on the context, a count of functions can be
useful as in the above, but in another area it might not give an
indication of the functionality. Here is an example where counting is
misleading:
Take the numerical solution to an ODE.
Mathematica has NDSolve[] while Matlab for example has many functions
for numerical solution for an ode (ode23, ode45, ode113, ode15s,
ode23s, ode23t, ode23tb etc..) where the user needs to select the one
to use. And for a pde it even has a toolbox dedicated just for pde's.
While in Mathematica, pretty much all of this is done by just this one
overworked function NDSOlve[]. A super function. I happen to prefer in
this case the super function solution, and then use options to adjust
its behavior as it makes one more familiar with the API. Others might
prefer the Matlab approach.
So, in this case, function counting would not favor Mathematica
against Matlab even though the functionalities are pretty much the
same.
--Nasser
[/quote]
So any attempt at counting functions is going to need a *lot* of human
interaction and analysis, before those integers are of any use whatsoever. The
person doing the function counting would need to be very familiar with both
packages.
There have been various papers comparing the mathematical packages. I doubt
there is any perfect way to do this, but personally I believe counting functions
would come well down the list of 'best' ways.
I think you should also note that at least on an individual basis, you will
probably uses only 10% of the functionality of the big packages. What suites
you, may not be appropriate for someone else.
For me at least, from once a fan of Mathematica, I've come to realise that's it
use in industry is so small that it's hardly worth knowing once you leave
academia. (If you do not believe that, do a search of jobs in places like
monster.com, and see how many companies want Mathematica knowledge. Then compare
it to MATLAB). Whilst I can't say I know companies are beating down the doors to
get Sage, I do see that being more attractive to me personally, as its a tool
you can work with companies, show them results on a browser, and let them make
changes in the browser. That's great if you work with companies thousands of
miles away. That beats Mathematica any day.
Dave
--
I respectfully request that this message is not archived by companies as
unscrupulous as 'Experts Exchange' . In case you are unaware,
'Experts Exchange' take questions posted on the web and try to find
idiots stupid enough to pay for the answers, which were posted freely
by others. They are leeches. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Nasser M. Abbasi... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 11:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Dave" <foo at (no spam) coo.com> wrote in message news:4b06beb1 at (no spam) 212.67.96.135...
[quote]Whilst I can't say I know companies are beating down the doors to get Sage,
I do see that being more attractive to me personally, as its a tool you can
work with companies, show them results on a browser, and let them make
changes in the browser. That's great if you work with companies thousands
of miles away. That beats Mathematica any day.
Dave
[/quote]
I do not understand what you mean by make change in the browser? can you
give a link to where one can do this now?
Can one in Sage make a demo and have someone else run it on their end
without having sage installed on their computer? i.e. I want to email
someone a file, and have them run on on their end without having sage
installed?
With Mathematica, I can do that. There is a free Mathematica player (like a
free pdf reader) which once installed on your system, then one can run any
mathematica demo by just double clicking on it. I have written few, here is
a link to some I have:
http://12000.org/my_notes/mma_demos/index.htm
If I can do that in sage, I would be very interested to learn it. Please
point me to a link where I can run a Sage simulation without having to have
sage installed.
But last time I looked at it, I could not do that in Sage without having to
have it installed on the PC. (no one would download 800 MB file to windows
to install, just to run some code someone else send them? May be this
changed?
And I can't do this in Matlab nor in Maple, and I certainly not going to try
Java again. Only now in Mathematica I can do this.
And Wolfram says in the next version of Mathemtica, they will have this
player as a browser plug-in, which means one can run the Mathematica code
inside the browser by clicking on a mathematica demo file. Reference:
http://blog.wolfram.com/2009/11/12/the-rd-pipeline-for-mathematica/#more-2172
Quote:
"And here's a big direction: embedding the Mathematica interface into
things.Making Mathematica notebooks be smooth plug-ins.
Coming very soon is a complete browser plug-in for all the common browsers
and platforms, so you can seamlessly run a Mathematica notebook inside a web
browser.
So that if you click on a .nb or a .nbp file, it'll just automatically
download a plug-in-typically a version of Mathematica Player-and it'll just
open in the frame of your browser.
The same idea is coming for example for PowerPoint. So right in the middle
of a PowerPoint presentation, you can have a live Mathematica notebook, with
Manipulate and everything."
I think this is very interesting.
As far as jobs is concerned, I think you will find that jobs that require
any CAS tool to be very limited, it does not matter which CAS system it is.
If I am only looking for a job, I would not be learning Mathematica nor
Sage, I would be learning power point and HTML ;)
Any way, it will be interesting to come back and see where things will be 10
years from now !
Best,
--Nasser |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Dave... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Nasser M. Abbasi wrote:
[quote]"Dave" <foo at (no spam) coo.com> wrote in message news:4b06beb1 at (no spam) 212.67.96.135...
Whilst I can't say I know companies are beating down the doors to get Sage,
I do see that being more attractive to me personally, as its a tool you can
work with companies, show them results on a browser, and let them make
changes in the browser. That's great if you work with companies thousands
of miles away. That beats Mathematica any day.
Dave
I do not understand what you mean by make change in the browser? can you
give a link to where one can do this now?
[/quote]
Sure. Create yourself an account on
http://www.sagenb.org/
You do not need to download anything, as you will be using a server hosted
somewhere else. The admin of the server will probably put limits on the amount
of RAM and CPU time you can use, so there are advantages to having a local
server. If it's local, you just connect your browser to
http://localhost:8000
[quote]Can one in Sage make a demo and have someone else run it on their end
without having sage installed on their computer? i.e. I want to email
someone a file, and have them run on on their end without having sage
installed?
[/quote]
Yes.
In fact, neither you nor the other person need to have Sage installed.
There needs to be a Sage server, but that can be on your machine, his, or a a
publicly accessible Sage server thousands of miles away.
The communication can be via HTTPS, using encrypted traffic, so it is suitable
for commercial purposes, where standard HTTP does not offer sufficient security.
It goes without saying, if the information is highly confidential, it would be
unwise to run it on a public server. The admin of the system could read your files.
I should add at this point my knowledge of using Sage is *very* minimal. But I
do spend some of my spare time developing it. My aim it to get better Solaris
support.
Sage now runs fine on Solaris (SPARC) though building it is a bit tricky. It's
not running well on OpenSolaris, though I hope to fix that, as I just bought a
Sun Ultra 27 with a quad core 3.33 GHz Xeon and 12 GB RAM!
[quote]With Mathematica, I can do that. There is a free Mathematica player (like a
free pdf reader) which once installed on your system, then one can run any
mathematica demo by just double clicking on it. I have written few, here is
a link to some I have:
http://12000.org/my_notes/mma_demos/index.htm
[/quote]
Sage works as a client/server just like a normal web site. You do not need to
download anything to read HTML.
[quote]If I can do that in sage, I would be very interested to learn it. Please
point me to a link where I can run a Sage simulation without having to have
sage installed.
[/quote]
See above.
[quote]But last time I looked at it, I could not do that in Sage without having to
have it installed on the PC. (no one would download 800 MB file to windows
to install, just to run some code someone else send them? May be this
changed?
[/quote]
I do not think it has ever been like that. I think you mis-understood the
concept. But I may be wrong. I know it does not work like that now.
There will be more limitations using a public server. If you want someone else
to be able to run some CPU intensive stuff you wrote, then you would need to
install your own Sage server, and give them access to that.
[quote]And I can't do this in Matlab nor in Maple, and I certainly not going to try
Java again. Only now in Mathematica I can do this.
[/quote]
But the Mathematica solution is limited, as the other person can not change the
code. But in Sage, you can allow others to edit your notebooks.
[quote]And Wolfram says in the next version of Mathemtica, they will have this
player as a browser plug-in, which means one can run the Mathematica code
inside the browser by clicking on a mathematica demo file. Reference:
http://blog.wolfram.com/2009/11/12/the-rd-pipeline-for-mathematica/#more-2172
Quote:
"And here's a big direction: embedding the Mathematica interface into
things.Making Mathematica notebooks be smooth plug-ins.
Coming very soon is a complete browser plug-in for all the common browsers
and platforms, so you can seamlessly run a Mathematica notebook inside a web
browser.
[/quote]
Run yes, but due to license restrictions, I very much doubt Wolfram Research
will let anyone you choose make any changes they want.
[quote]As far as jobs is concerned, I think you will find that jobs that require
any CAS tool to be very limited, it does not matter which CAS system it is.
[/quote]
Jobs requiring skills in MATLAB are quite common in engineering.
[quote]If I am only looking for a job, I would not be learning Mathematica nor
Sage, I would be learning power point and HTML 
[/quote]
Sage does not have its own langague like MATLAB, Maple or Mathematica. Sage uses
Python. So you would need to learn Python, for which there are many jobs!!
[quote]Any way, it will be interesting to come back and see where things will be 10
years from now !
[/quote]
Yes, it will. I hope none of the commercial vendors go out of business, as
competition always enhances products. I doubt modern CPUs would be as good as
they are, if there was not the competition between Intel and AMD.
Dave
--
I respectfully request that this message is not archived by companies as
unscrupulous as 'Experts Exchange' . In case you are unaware,
'Experts Exchange' take questions posted on the web and try to find
idiots stupid enough to pay for the answers, which were posted freely
by others. They are leeches. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Richard Fateman... |
| Posted: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:21 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I am curious as to how much of the use of Sage is simply as a front end
to Maxima.
Sage includes much esoterica of little use to most scientists and
engineers, and otherwise has (historically, at least) sent most
of the computations to a slow, out-of-date, version of the Maxima
system. An up-to-date, faster, and smaller system running just Maxima
is freely available, and it runs natively on many systems, including
Windows.
RJF |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Jul 31, 2010 4:27 pm
|
|
