Re: Re: Comparison between Mathematica and other symbolic

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg92567] Re: [mg92564] Re: Comparison between Mathematica and other symbolic*From*: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>*Date*: Mon, 6 Oct 2008 04:12:47 -0400 (EDT)*Organization*: Mathematics & Statistics, Univ. of Mass./Amherst*References*: <gc7fsf$eo7$1@smc.vnet.net> <200810051006.GAA11523@smc.vnet.net>*Reply-to*: murray at math.umass.edu

And "remember how to use it between infrequent uses" is a good criterion to note when comparing the long-to-type Mathematica names of functions, on the one hand, and the terse but often cryptic names of functions in some other systems. AES wrote: > 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) ?!?!?!? > -- Murray Eisenberg murray at math.umass.edu Mathematics & Statistics Dept. Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H) University of Massachusetts 413 545-2859 (W) 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801 Amherst, MA 01003-9305

**References**:**Re: Comparison between Mathematica and other symbolic systems***From:*AES <siegman@stanford.edu>