Re: Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg97238] Re: [mg97223] Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments
- From: DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 01:03:09 -0500 (EST)
- References: <goqphr$lt2$1@smc.vnet.net> <got86p$ge8$1@smc.vnet.net>
- Reply-to: drmajorbob at bigfoot.com
> Humbleness and asserting one's unsolicited opinion are pretty much > contradictory. Rather unnecessary, I think. IMHO. Bobby On Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:53:38 -0500, Szabolcs <szhorvat at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 7, 9:36 am, Peltio <pel... at twilight.zone> wrote: >> David Park wrote: >> > There were hundreds >> > of responses with some threads going to great depth. As far as I >> could = > find, >> > there was not a single mention of Mathematica and only one reference >> to >> > using a CAS. Everything else concerned the merits of C++, Perl, List, >> > Fortran etc. To me, this again was incredible. >> >> It seems to me that the alternatives listed are all Open and Free. >> Mathematica has very favorable student licences, but what happen when >> the student leave school/uni? The price, albeit justifiable, is very >> high for a yet-to-be-employed graduate. It may be better to learn basic >> tools one can afford later on. > > Except that none of the tools above were meant for the same purpose as > CASs/Mathematica. > >> IMHO. > > Humbleness and asserting one's unsolicited opinion are pretty much > contradictory. > -- DrMajorBob at bigfoot.com