Re: Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg97269] Re: [mg97168] Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments
- From: "Ingolf Dahl" <ingolf.dahl at telia.com>
- Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2009 05:18:03 -0500 (EST)
- References: <goqphr$lt2$1@smc.vnet.net> <200903070737.CAA16863@smc.vnet.net>
Some of these alternatives can only be considered to be free as long as you count your own time as free. To reinvent the wheel must always be considered as unprofessional malpractice. Or? Can you afford to use basic tools, when there are professional tools available? Will you get ready within finite time with the task you might do in a week using the professional tools? Ingolf Dahl Sweden > -----Original Message----- > From: Peltio [mailto:peltio at twilight.zone] > Sent: den 7 mars 2009 08:38 > To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net > Subject: [mg97168] Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments > > 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. IMHO. > > >
- References:
- Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments
- From: Peltio <peltio@twilight.zone>
- Re: Mathematica 7.0.1.0 and some General Comments