Re: Comparison between Mathematica and other symbolic systems
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg92564] Re: Comparison between Mathematica and other symbolic systems
- From: AES <siegman at stanford.edu>
- Date: Sun, 5 Oct 2008 06:06:44 -0400 (EDT)
- Organization: Stanford University
- References: <gc7fsf$eo7$1@smc.vnet.net>
In article <gc7fsf$eo7$1 at smc.vnet.net>, Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net> wrote: > On 10/3/08 at 6:41 AM, awnl at gmx-topmail.de (Albert Retey) wrote: > > >When choosing a system, I think one needs to answer these questions: > > >1) can the system solve the problem at hand > >2) how much effort is it to feed the problem to the system > >3) how efficient is the system in calculating the solution > > Which really says 2) is the most important consideration. But I > would expand 2) to be the amount of time to input the problem > *and* verify the input has been done correctly. In my > experience, the time to verify/debug input is by far where most > of the effort is spent. No mention at all of "how easy it is to learn to use the system" (and remember how to use it between infrequent uses) ?!?!?!?
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Re: Comparison between Mathematica and other symbolic
- From: Murray Eisenberg <murray@math.umass.edu>
- Re: Re: Comparison between Mathematica and other symbolic