Re: Re: Should I be using Mathematica at all?
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg98654] Re: [mg98606] Re: Should I be using Mathematica at all?
- From: peter <plindsay.0 at gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 05:01:11 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <email@example.com> <200904141015.GAA07628@smc.vnet.net>
respectfully, I don't think this is quite right although I see what you are getting at. C++ is platform independent and free, unless you chose to tie yourself in to particular proprietary Libraries or IDEs. regards Peter 2009/4/14 Joseph Gwinn <joegwinn at comcast.net>: > In article <gruppj$nk$1 at smc.vnet.net>, > "Paul Ellsmore" <paul.ellsmore at nanion.co.uk> wrote: > >> Hello again, >> >> I have had several questions answered by this group, for which I am very >> grateful. Now I have a more general topic, which I know will not have >> single, clear answers. I just would like to hear your opinions. >> >> I have some (fairly complicated) legacy Mathematica v5 software which we >> currently use in-house. Our intention is to turn this software into a >> saleable product. At the moment, I am contemplating upgrading to V7, wri= ting >> a GUI for our code (which has no compatibility issues with V7) and >> distributing it using PlayerPro. > > What is the nature of this product? > > >> To protect our IP, I will be using Encode to make it impossible for it t= o be >> reverse engineered. Does anyone know how secure this will actually be? I= s it >> more or less secure than a compiled C++ program would be, for instance? = Are >> there any particular issues I should be aware of? >> >> It turns out that there are some serious problems for us using PlayerPro >> (apart from the price!) which are making us reconsider using Mathematica= at >> all. Top of the list is the inability of Wolfram to offer a trial licens= e >> for PlayerPro. What this would mean is that we would be losing 100 or so >> every time someone ordered a trial version but did not subsequently buy = the >> package, because there is no way for us to get our PlayerPro license bac= k. >> This is not viable. The best Wolfram can offer is to give our prospectiv= e >> client a trial version of the full Mathematica package (say for 15 days)= . As >> a workaround, this is very clunky, when I requested my trial of V7 it= took >> 4 days to get the license. I think that, these days, people expect to go= to >> a website, download a trial version and start working with it immediatel= y. >> >> So, I am considering our options, in particular open source code, such a= s >> C++, and I'd be interested in your opinions about this. Our V5 code does= n't >> involve any exotic maths, but it makes extensive use of SetDelayed, and >> these definitions are frequently nested within long and complicated Do >> loops. Speed is crucial to our application, so is there any, in principl= e, >> reason why Mathematica might be able to do things significantly faster t= han >> a compiled C++ program (assuming the C++ code is written by someone who >> knows what they are doing)? Is there a better language than C++, bearing= in >> mind the need to compile (or encode in some way) and distribute the >> resulting code? I know there used to be a compiler for Mathematica once = upon >> a time, is there any easy way to get from mathematica code to a compilab= le >> program. I should stress that we are very happy with Mathematica in term= s of >> developing our application, it's just generating anything that we could = sell >> that is problematical. >> >> I have some experience of writing VB, Visual C and similar applications,= but >> these never had a large graphical content. Our code will require a lot o= f >> plotting of data (2D only, but lots of curves which need to be interacti= ve >> in some sense). Mathematica can do everything we want in this respect, b= ut I >> am less sure about the open source code. I am sure there are add-on >> packages, but never having used them I don't know whether they can match >> Mathematica's built in abilities, any comments? > > The big issue with translation to C++ or any other language to to avoid > lock-in to either Windows or to the compiler make and model. If lock-i= n > is permitted, especially to Windows, every time MS burps you will be > forced to play catch-up. While C++ is in theory standardized, there ar= e > significant differences in what C++ compilers will accept. Use of the = C > subset of C++ is usually far less stressful, and allows for graceful > transition should the compiler vendor go to find his guru. > > Platform independence also helps when negotiating with platform and > compiler vendors. > > To avoid lock-in, one must do all testing on at least two platform kinds > using compilers from at least two makers. It isn't enough to make > platform independence a goal, one must directly test for independence, > as its very easy for dependencies to creep in unnoticed. > > Choice of platforms: If one covers Windows, MacOS, and UNIX/Linux, one > has covered 99%. Going from one platform to two is the big step. > Adding the third isn't that much harder to achieve, although testing is > still an expense. > > Joe Gwinn > > -- Peter Lindsay
- Re: Should I be using Mathematica at all?
- From: Joseph Gwinn <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Re: Should I be using Mathematica at all?