Re: But is it worth to use Mathematica ?

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg80380] Re: But is it worth to use Mathematica ?*From*: David Bailey <dave at Remove_Thisdbailey.co.uk>*Date*: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:05:03 -0400 (EDT)*References*: <fabgmk$icr$1@smc.vnet.net>

Cristian wrote: > But is it worth to use Mathematica if I have to make serious > scientific calculations? > Do I believe that it is better immediately to depart with the c++ and > to use the numerous numerical and symbolic libraries (what besides are > free)? Surely to the beginning it is had to study more but then they > are not had to make the compromises (matlink to recall external forms > to increase speed execution, sparsearray for example have grow > limitation to <= 2^31 also on version to 64 bit, etc etc). And then I > believe that for an advanced use of mathematica a peer effort is had > to do however? Certainly that if the wolfram succeeded in building a > compiler for mathematica... then the heaven would be to course of > hand!!! > excuse me for my bad English > hi and thanks > cristian > Since Mathematica is written in C, ultimately what you say must be true. However, when you use Mathematica you are accessing parts of an enormous development effort. You could, of course, take your argument a little further, and write in assembler or machine code! Unless a restriction such as that on SparseArray is likely to be important to you in the very near future, this will obviously get lifted as Wolfram put more effort into 64-bit machines. At present machine integers are still limited to 32 bits - which is presumably the reason for the SparseArray limit. That restriction will presumably get lifted soon. Forget the Mathematica compiler (IMHO) (other than the existing Compile, of course). David Bailey http://www.dbaileyconsultancy.co.uk