Xref: utzoo comp.sys.next:16159 sci.math.symbolic:2364 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!ucsd!nic.cerf.net!benseb From: benseb@nic.cerf.net (Booker Bense) Newsgroups: comp.sys.next,sci.math.symbolic Subject: Re: Maple for the NeXT Message-ID: <345@nic.cerf.net> Date: 22 Apr 91 18:28:06 GMT References: <1991Apr21.191124.14582@watmath.waterloo.edu> Followup-To: comp.sys.next Organization: San Diego Supercomputer Center @ UCSD Lines: 54 In article hardy@golem.ps.uci.edu (Meinhard E. Mayer (Hardy)) writes: >In article <1991Apr21.191124.14582@watmath.waterloo.edu> wgilbert@watmath.uwaterloo.ca (William Gilbert) writes: > [quote deleted ] > >This is good news! I have tried Maple V and Mathematica 1.2 (under >X, off a Dec 5200, as well as the Mathematica 1.2 on the NeXT) and find >the first one fater, easier to use, with a good help system (the >Mathematica 1.2 I got with my NeXt station does not have help at all). - This is a problem with compatablity between NextStep 2.0 and Mathematica 1.2. A working Mathematica interface has a useful help command ( it will do function name completetion and provides internal documentation on the function. ) This is supposed to be fixed in MMA 2.0. When will it arrive ? >It will be an incentive for Wolfram to finally ship a complete and >useable Mathematica; as far as I can tell from browsing thtough the >Mathematica 2.0 book, it still lacks the differential-geometry >packages Maple has. - There are lots of user developed packages for MMA. I'm sure there are the basics for Differential Geometry somewhere. This is also true of Maple. I don't have access to Maple %-(! , so I can't say whether it's easier to develop libraries for MMA or Maple. However, if you get seriously into MMA , Rom Meader's book is essential. Many of the complaints about MMA ( slowness , no type specification...) can be significantly improved by adopting a different programming style. The obvious Fortran induced way of doing things (i.e. Do loops ) is generally the slowest and worst way to do things. It is quite easy to double or triple the speed of your code if you take advantage of the MMA's internals. Developing specialized packages for MMA is fairly easy once you get past the first one. Developing efficient packages is harder, although from what I could see of the recent demo of MMA 2.0 they have increased the support within MMA for doing this. I think the general direction that MMA is taking is moving away from the ``super calculator'' approach into a ``integrated language '' approach. In 2.0 it will be much easier to incoporate external programs into MMA. >The main feature the NeXT version of Mathematica which makes it >attractive is the "Notebook" facility, which Maple still lacks. >Having a choice will make both systems better! > -IMHO, the notebook is the most important feature of MMA. Much of it's faults can be forgiven for this. I would not use MMA if it were not for the notebook. - Booker C. Bense prefered: benseb@grumpy.sdsc.edu "I think it's GOOD that everyone NeXT Mail: benseb@next.sdsc.edu becomes food " - Hobbes