Re: Royalty free runtime for Mathematica
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg117083] Re: Royalty free runtime for Mathematica
- From: DC <b.gatessucks at gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:00:13 -0500 (EST)
- References: <il50rp$n9u$1@smc.vnet.net>
I'm with you 100%. I'm meeting Wolfram representative in London next week and I hope I will get a better understanding of their vision. -Francesco On 08/03/11 10:36, Fonseca wrote: > Hi, > > I'm looking for a way of calling the Mathematica runtime, in a royalty- > free way, like some other mathematics software have. > > I know there is a .net/link. > > What I can't find is the possibility of using this functionality in a > royalty free way, that is, without the end user of my .net application > (or some other technology) having to buy the full mathematica or any > other package to run it. > > That I know of, there's at least one other (big) software that offers > this runtime for FREE. > > If there isn't something like this in Mathematica, I ask WR to please > reconsider it (probably many of you have already asked), because this > might become my turning point to start working with the other > software, and probably it already is for a lot of other professionals. > Even more that, in the corporate world, when I ask for a Mathematica > license everybody asks me "what's that? Are you becoming a > mathematician?" (lets hope that the new CDF can help us all on that), > but if I ask for a license on another (big) software, the answer > becomes "I think we have a couple of licenses on the research > department. We could ask them if they are using..." > > Although any comments on profit strategy are welcome (and I'm already > assuming the functionality isn't there), I'll consider them out of > context on the current market where there are a lot of royalty free > alternatives for this runtime distribution (like the one I'm > considering). If so, why am I bothering you? Well, because I have a > slightly biased preference for Mathematica (as probably most of us in > this newsgroup have), but, at the end of the day, I just need things > done... > > I currently have a spreadsheet add-in application that needs of > serious extension, and I've been looking for the simplest free way of > adding more power functionality to it. There is no possibility of > buying some hundreds runtime licenses, unless they only cost a couple > of dollars each, or less. Why so little? Because it happens that > nowadays, in our competitive world, most corporates don't have any > money to spare unless it is strictly necessary, and so the developer > (assuming non professional soft developer) ends up producing a new > business tool at his own cost (effort). Having an expensive runtime > ends up the possibility of being used on all this small to medium > projects that, in the three thousand people company where I work (and > others that I know of), end up being the most common and also most > successful tools. > > I fell that the WR strategy is much more adapted for academic and > research fields than for corporate business, where other packages end > up having much better adapted strategies. > > I've been extending the functionality of excel with XLL (that's like a > dll based on a special framework), but I can't seem to find a way to > link this XLL with anything else either than other free .net > libraries, or the free run-time offered by the other software > supplier. > > A couple o days ago I sent a post to this forum with a compiled > library question (unfortunately, still no answer), asking how to link > a mathematica generated C code compiled library with a program outside > mathematica (can't figure out the data types, or if there are > dependencies). But even if this ends up working, I can only use > Mathematica as a RAD interface, and not for the more complex stuff, > since it is not possible to compile those (other packages return a > compiled library that keeps contact with their full runtime). > > Are there more people in this forum that share the same need? > If yes, please leave a comment so that my voice becomes louder. > > Regards, > P. Fonseca > > P.S. just on the day that the new 8.0.1 player is coming out, I need > to add that, although the player or CDF idea is a good one, and there > aren't practical alternatives on the market to do what the player does > (and for this I think we all have to congratulate WR on the result), > it is out of the question using it's technology to develop the type of > applications I'm talking, due to the lack of integration with all > other software tools that is expected and fundamental on a corporate > competitive world. >